Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 3/2010

01-04-2010

Exploring the impact of changes in neurogenic urinary incontinence frequency and condition-specific quality of life on preference-based outcomes

Auteurs: William Hollingworth, Jonathan D. Campbell, Jonathan Kowalski, Arliene Ravelo, Isabelle Girod, Andrew Briggs, Sean D. Sullivan

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2010

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Many trials do not measure quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Therefore, decision analysts often map condition-specific outcomes to preference scores. We estimated the relationship between changes in preference scores and commonly reported condition-specific outcomes in patients with urinary incontinence (UI) due to neurogenic detrusor overactivity.

Methods

In 59 patients recruited to a neurogenic UI trial, clinical outcomes (UI episodes), condition-specific quality of life (Incontinence Quality of Life Instrument (I-QOL)), and SF-6D preference scores were measured at enrollment and 24 weeks. We used multiple linear regression to estimate the impact on SF-6D scores of 50; 50–99 and 100% reductions in UI episodes and a 10-point improvement in I-QOL.

Results

By 24 weeks, mean (95% CI) daily UI episodes fell by 0.85 (0.04, 1.3) and mean I-QOL scores improved by 18 (12, 24). SF-6D scores increased by 0.03 (0.003, 0.058), due to improvements in role limitations. A ≥ 50% reduction in UI episodes was achieved by 49% of patients and corresponded to a 0.09 (0.02, 0.16) SF-6D increase. A ≥ 10-point increase in I-QOL was attained by 65% of patients and was associated with a 0.05 (−0.02, 0.12) SF-6D increase.

Conclusions

These estimates provide preliminary data for decision analysts wishing to map neurogenic UI outcomes to preference scores.
vorige artikel Socio-demographic and clinical determinants of quality of life in Chinese patients with schizophrenia: a prospective study
volgende artikel Habitual physical activity and health-related quality of life in older adults: interactions between the amount and intensity of activity (the Nakanojo Study)
Literatuur
1.
Morimoto, T., & Fukui, T. (2002). Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: Review and reference for health care professionals. Journal of Epidemiology, 12, 160–178.PubMed
2.
3.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33, 375–384.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Lall, R., Smith, J. F., & Lamb, S. E. (2008). EuroQol EQ-5D and condition-specific measures of health outcome in women with urinary incontinence: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 17, 475–483.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Wiebe, S., Guyatt, G., Weaver, B., Matijevic, S., & Sidwell, C. (2003). Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 52–60.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Dumville, J. C., Manca, A., Kitchener, H. C., Smith, A. R., Nelson, L., & Torgerson, D. J. (2006). Cost-effectiveness analysis of open colposuspension versus laparoscopic colposuspension in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG, 113, 1014–1022.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Bell, C. M., Chapman, R. H., Stone, P. W., Sandberg, E. A., & Neumann, P. J. (2001). An off-the-shelf help list: A comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Medical Decision Making, 21, 288–294.PubMed
9.
Brazier, J. E., Kolotkin, R. L., Crosby, R. D., & Williams, G. R. (2004). Estimating a preference-based single index for the impact of weight on quality of life-lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. Value in Health, 7, 490–498.CrossRefPubMed
10.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE publications.
11.
Patrick, D. L., Martin, M. L., Bushnell, D. M., Yalcin, I., Wagner, T. H., & Buesching, D. P. (1999). Quality of life of women with urinary incontinence: further development of the incontinence quality of life instrument (I-QOL). Urology, 53, 71–76.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Wagner, T. H., Patrick, D. L., Bavendam, T. G., Martin, M. L., & Buesching, D. P. (1996). Quality of life of persons with urinary incontinence: development of a new measure. Urology, 47, 67–71.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Reese, P. R., Pleil, A. M., Okano, G. J., & Kelleher, C. J. (2003). Multinational study of reliability and validity of the King’s Health Questionnaire in patients with overactive bladder. Quality of Life Research, 12, 427–442.CrossRefPubMed
14.
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. (2006). Urinary incontinence: The management of urinary incontinence in women. London: RCOG Press.
15.
Schmidt, R. A., Jonas, U., Oleson, K. A., Janknegt, R. A., Hassouna, M. M., Siegel, S. W., et al. (1999). Sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of refractory urinary urge incontinence. Sacral nerve stimulation study group. Journal of Urology, 162, 352–357.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Siegel, S. W., Catanzaro, F., Dijkema, H. E., Elhilali, M. M., Fowler, C. J., Gajewski, J. B., et al. (2000). Long-term results of a multicenter study on sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of urinary urge incontinence, urgency-frequency, and retention. Urology, 56, 87–91.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Brazier, J., Czoski-Murray, C., Roberts, J., Brown, M., Symonds, T., & Kelleher, C. (2008). Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: The King’s Health Questionnaire. Medical Decision Making, 28, 113–126.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kilonzo, M., Vale, L., Stearns, S. C., Grant, A., Cody, J., Glazener, C. M., et al. (2004). Cost effectiveness of tension-free vaginal tape for the surgical management of female stress incontinence. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 20, 455–463.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Manca, A., Sculpher, M. J., Ward, K., & Hilton, P. (2003). A cost-utility analysis of tension-free vaginal tape versus colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence. BJOG, 110, 255–262.PubMed
20.
Mittmann, N., Trakas, K., Risebrough, N., & Liu, B. A. (1999). Utility scores for chronic conditions in a community-dwelling population. Pharmacoeconomics, 15, 369–376.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Subak, L. L., Brown, J. S., Kraus, S. R., Brubaker, L., Lin, F., Richter, H. E., et al. (2006). The “costs” of urinary incontinence for women. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 107, 908–916.PubMed
22.
Currie, C. J., McEwan, P., Poole, C. D., Odeyemi, I. A., Datta, S. N., & Morgan, C. L. (2006). The impact of the overactive bladder on health-related utility and quality of life. BJU International, 97, 1267–1272.CrossRefPubMed
23.
O’Brien, B. J., Goeree, R., Bernard, L., Rosner, A., & Williamson, T. (2001). Cost-Effectiveness of tolterodine for patients with urge incontinence who discontinue initial therapy with oxybutynin: A Canadian perspective. Clinical Therapeutics, 23, 2038–2049.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Schurch, B., de Sèze, M., Denys, P., Chartier-Kastler, E., Haab, F., Everaert, K., et al. (2005). Botulinum toxin type a is a safe and effective treatment for neurogenic urinary incontinence: results of a single treatment, randomized, placebo controlled 6-month study. Journal of Urology, 174, 196–200.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Schurch, B., Denys, P., Kozma, C. M., Reese, P. R., Slaton, T., & Barron, R. (2007). Reliability and validity of the incontinence quality of life questionnaire in patients with neurogenic urinary incontinence. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88, 646–652.CrossRefPubMed
26.
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr., & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31, 247–263.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1115–1128.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Chancellor, J. V., Coyle, D., & Drummond, M. F. (1997). Constructing health state preference values from descriptive quality of life outcomes: mission impossible? Quality of Life Research, 6, 159–168.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Stolk, E. A., & Busschbach, J. J. (2003). Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 12, 363–371.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Brazier, J. E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., & Rowen, D. L. (2009). A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. The European Journal of Health Economics.
31.
Arah, O. A., Chiba, Y., & Greenland, S. (2008). Bias formulas for external adjustment and sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounders. Annals of Epidemiology, 18, 637–646.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Marra, C. A., Esdaile, J. M., Guh, D., Kopec, J. A., Brazier, J. E., Koehler, B. E., et al. (2004). A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Medical Care, 42, 1125–1131.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Bryan, S., & Longworth, L. (2005). Measuring health-related utility: why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? European Journal of Health Economics, 6, 253–260.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Barton, G. R., Sach, T. H., Avery, A. J., Jenkinson, C., Doherty, M., & Whynes, D. K., et al. (2007). A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged >/= 45 years. Health Economics.
35.
Claxton, K., Sculpher, M., McCabe, C., Briggs, A., Akehurst, R., Buxton, M., et al. (2005). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Economics, 14, 339–347.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Exploring the impact of changes in neurogenic urinary incontinence frequency and condition-specific quality of life on preference-based outcomes
Auteurs
William Hollingworth
Jonathan D. Campbell
Jonathan Kowalski
Arliene Ravelo
Isabelle Girod
Andrew Briggs
Sean D. Sullivan
Publicatiedatum
01-04-2010
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9590-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2010

Quality of Life Research 3/2010 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of a Spanish version of the Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia Scale

OriginalPaper

Initial development of the Temporary Utilities Index: a multiattribute system for classifying the functional health impact of diagnostic testing

OriginalPaper

Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D in a study of people with mild to moderate dementia

OriginalPaper

Creating and using the CDC HRQOL healthy days index with fixed option survey responses

OriginalPaper

Preference values associated with stage III colon cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy

OriginalPaper

Relationship of quality of life to dispositional optimism, health locus of control and self-efficacy in older subjects living in different environments