Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 9/2015

01-09-2015

Quality of life and patient preferences: identification of subgroups of multiple sclerosis patients

Auteurs: Rosalba Rosato, Silvia Testa, Alessandra Oggero, Giorgia Molinengo, Antonio Bertolotto

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2015

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

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to estimate preferences related to quality of life attributes in people with multiple sclerosis, by keeping heterogeneity of patient preference in mind, using the latent class approach.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment survey was developed using the following attributes: activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, pain/fatigue, anxiety/depression and attention/concentration. Choice sets were presented as pairs of hypothetical health status, based upon a fractional factorial design.

Results

The latent class logit model estimated on 152 patients identified three subpopulations, which, respectively, attached more importance to: (1) the physical dimension; (2) pain/fatigue and anxiety/depression; and (3) instrumental activities of daily living impairments, anxiety/depression and attention/concentration. A posterior analysis suggests that the latent class membership may be related to an individual’s age to some extent, or to diagnosis and treatment, while apart from energy dimension, no significant difference exists between latent groups, with regard to Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 scales.

Conclusions

A quality of life preference-based utility measure for people with multiple sclerosis was developed. These utility values allow identification of a hierarchic priority among different aspects of quality of life and may allow physicians to develop a care programme tailored to patient needs.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 887–900.PubMedCrossRef Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K., et al. (2000). Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9(8), 887–900.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Trask, P. C., Hsu, M. A., & McQuellon, R. (2009). Other paradigms: Health-related quality of life as a measure in cancer treatment: its importance and relevance. Cancer Journal, 15(5), 435–440.CrossRef Trask, P. C., Hsu, M. A., & McQuellon, R. (2009). Other paradigms: Health-related quality of life as a measure in cancer treatment: its importance and relevance. Cancer Journal, 15(5), 435–440.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Miller, D. K. R. (2008). Health-related quality of life assessment in multiple sclerosis. Reviews in Neurological Diseases, 5(2), 56–64.PubMed Miller, D. K. R. (2008). Health-related quality of life assessment in multiple sclerosis. Reviews in Neurological Diseases, 5(2), 56–64.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Montazeri, A. (2009). Quality of life data as prognostic indicators of survival in cancer patients: An overview of the literature from 1982 to 2008. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 102.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Montazeri, A. (2009). Quality of life data as prognostic indicators of survival in cancer patients: An overview of the literature from 1982 to 2008. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 102.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Miller, D. M., & Allen, R. (2010). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Determinants, measurement, and use in clinical practice. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 10(5), 397–406.PubMedCrossRef Miller, D. M., & Allen, R. (2010). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Determinants, measurement, and use in clinical practice. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 10(5), 397–406.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Opara, J. A., Jaracz, K., & Brola, W. (2010). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Medicine and Life, 3(4), 352–358.PubMedCentralPubMed Opara, J. A., Jaracz, K., & Brola, W. (2010). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Medicine and Life, 3(4), 352–358.PubMedCentralPubMed
7.
go back to reference Camfield, L., & Skevington, S. M. (2008). On subjective well-being and quality of life. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(6), 764–775.PubMedCrossRef Camfield, L., & Skevington, S. M. (2008). On subjective well-being and quality of life. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(6), 764–775.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118(8), 622–629.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118(8), 622–629.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Mayo, N. E., Hum, S., & Kuspinar, A. (2012). Methods and measures: What’s new for MS? Mult Scler (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 19(6), 709–713.CrossRef Mayo, N. E., Hum, S., & Kuspinar, A. (2012). Methods and measures: What’s new for MS? Mult Scler (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 19(6), 709–713.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ryan, M., Major, K., & Skatun, D. (2005). Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 11(4), 328–338.PubMedCrossRef Ryan, M., Major, K., & Skatun, D. (2005). Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 11(4), 328–338.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Sung, L., Alibhai, S. M., Ethier, M. C., Teuffel, O., Cheng, S., Fisman, D., et al. (2012). Discrete choice experiment produced estimates of acceptable risks of therapeutic options in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 627–634.PubMedCrossRef Sung, L., Alibhai, S. M., Ethier, M. C., Teuffel, O., Cheng, S., Fisman, D., et al. (2012). Discrete choice experiment produced estimates of acceptable risks of therapeutic options in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 627–634.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., Peters, T. J., & Coast, J. (2010). Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Social Science and Medicine, 70(12), 1957–1965.PubMedCrossRef Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., Peters, T. J., & Coast, J. (2010). Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Social Science and Medicine, 70(12), 1957–1965.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Ryan, M., Bate, A., Eastmond, C. J., & Ludbrook, A. (2001). Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Quality Health Care, 10(Suppl 1), i55–i60.CrossRef Ryan, M., Bate, A., Eastmond, C. J., & Ludbrook, A. (2001). Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Quality Health Care, 10(Suppl 1), i55–i60.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2003). Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2(1), 55–64.PubMed Ryan, M., & Gerard, K. (2003). Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2(1), 55–64.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Ryan, M., Netten, A., Skatun, D., & Smith, P. (2006). Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome—An application to social care for older people. Journal of Health Economics, 25(5), 927–944.PubMedCrossRef Ryan, M., Netten, A., Skatun, D., & Smith, P. (2006). Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome—An application to social care for older people. Journal of Health Economics, 25(5), 927–944.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference The EuroQoL Group. (1990). EuroQoL-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.CrossRef The EuroQoL Group. (1990). EuroQoL-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L. A., Kristiansen, I. S., & Stavem, K. (2012). Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: Relative weights of the five dimensions. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1005–1012.PubMedCrossRef Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L. A., Kristiansen, I. S., & Stavem, K. (2012). Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: Relative weights of the five dimensions. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1005–1012.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kuspinar, A., & Mayo, N. E. (2013). Do generic utility measures capture what is important to the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Kuspinar, A., & Mayo, N. E. (2013). Do generic utility measures capture what is important to the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Miller, A., & Dishon, S. (2006). Health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis: The impact of disability, gender and employment status. Quality of Life Research, 15(2), 259–271.PubMedCrossRef Miller, A., & Dishon, S. (2006). Health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis: The impact of disability, gender and employment status. Quality of Life Research, 15(2), 259–271.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Buchanan, R. J., Johnson, O., Zuniga, M. A., Carrillo-Zuniga, G., & Chakravorty, B. J. (2012). Health-related quality of life among Latinos with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 11(4), 240–257.CrossRef Buchanan, R. J., Johnson, O., Zuniga, M. A., Carrillo-Zuniga, G., & Chakravorty, B. J. (2012). Health-related quality of life among Latinos with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 11(4), 240–257.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Bridges, J. F., Hauber, A. B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L. A., Regier, D. A., et al. (2011). Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: A report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health, 14(4), 403–413.PubMedCrossRef Bridges, J. F., Hauber, A. B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L. A., Regier, D. A., et al. (2011). Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: A report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health, 14(4), 403–413.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference McFadden, D. (1974). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, 3, 303–328.CrossRef McFadden, D. (1974). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, 3, 303–328.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press. Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press.
26.
go back to reference Hole, A. R. (2008). Modelling heterogeneity in patients’ preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. Journal of Health Economics, 27(4), 1078–1094.PubMedCrossRef Hole, A. R. (2008). Modelling heterogeneity in patients’ preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. Journal of Health Economics, 27(4), 1078–1094.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Shingler, S. L., Swinburn, P., Ali, S., Perard, R., & Lloyd, A. J. (2013). A discrete choice experiment to determine patient preferences for injection devices in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Health Economics, 16(8), 1036–1042. Shingler, S. L., Swinburn, P., Ali, S., Perard, R., & Lloyd, A. J. (2013). A discrete choice experiment to determine patient preferences for injection devices in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Health Economics, 16(8), 1036–1042.
28.
go back to reference Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Harooni, R., Myers, L. W., & Ellison, G. W. (1995). A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 4(3), 187–206.PubMedCrossRef Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Harooni, R., Myers, L. W., & Ellison, G. W. (1995). A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 4(3), 187–206.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Kurtzke, J. F. (1983). Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology, 33(11), 1444–1452.PubMedCrossRef Kurtzke, J. F. (1983). Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology, 33(11), 1444–1452.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Benedict, R. H., Wahlig, E., Bakshi, R., Fishman, I., Munschauer, F., Zivadinov, R., et al. (2005). Predicting quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Accounting for physical disability, fatigue, cognition, mood disorder, personality, and behavior change. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 231(1–2), 29–34.PubMedCrossRef Benedict, R. H., Wahlig, E., Bakshi, R., Fishman, I., Munschauer, F., Zivadinov, R., et al. (2005). Predicting quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Accounting for physical disability, fatigue, cognition, mood disorder, personality, and behavior change. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 231(1–2), 29–34.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Tarrants, M., Oleen-Burkey, M., Castelli-Haley, J., & Lage, M. J. (2011). The impact of comorbid depression on adherence to therapy for multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis International, 2011, 271321.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Tarrants, M., Oleen-Burkey, M., Castelli-Haley, J., & Lage, M. J. (2011). The impact of comorbid depression on adherence to therapy for multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis International, 2011, 271321.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Amato, M. P., Ponziani, G., Rossi, F., Liedl, C. L., Stefanile, C., & Rossi, L. (2001). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: The impact of depression, fatigue and disability. Multiple Sclerosis, 7(5), 340–344.PubMedCrossRef Amato, M. P., Ponziani, G., Rossi, F., Liedl, C. L., Stefanile, C., & Rossi, L. (2001). Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: The impact of depression, fatigue and disability. Multiple Sclerosis, 7(5), 340–344.PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
go back to reference Prakash, R. S., Snook, E. M., Lewis, J. M., Motl, R. W., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Cognitive impairments in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A meta-analysis. Multiple Sclerosis, 14(9), 1250–1261.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Prakash, R. S., Snook, E. M., Lewis, J. M., Motl, R. W., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Cognitive impairments in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A meta-analysis. Multiple Sclerosis, 14(9), 1250–1261.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Cella, D. F., Dineen, K., Arnason, B., et al. (1996). Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis (FAMS) quality of life instrument. Neurology, 47, 129–139.PubMedCrossRef Cella, D. F., Dineen, K., Arnason, B., et al. (1996). Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis (FAMS) quality of life instrument. Neurology, 47, 129–139.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Hobart, J. C., Lamping, D. L., Fitzpatrick, R., et al. (2001). The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29): A new patient-based outcome measure. Brain, 124, 962–973.PubMedCrossRef Hobart, J. C., Lamping, D. L., Fitzpatrick, R., et al. (2001). The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29): A new patient-based outcome measure. Brain, 124, 962–973.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Kuhfeld, W. F. (2005). Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. Cary, NC: SAS-Institute TS-722. Kuhfeld, W. F. (2005). Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. Cary, NC: SAS-Institute TS-722.
38.
go back to reference Orme, B. (1998). Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. In S. Software (Ed.), Sawtooth software: Research paper series. Orme, B. (1998). Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. In S. Software (Ed.), Sawtooth software: Research paper series.
39.
go back to reference Daly, A. J., & Hess, S. (2010). October). In European transport conference, Glasgow: Simple approaches for random utility modelling with panel data. Daly, A. J., & Hess, S. (2010). October). In European transport conference, Glasgow: Simple approaches for random utility modelling with panel data.
40.
go back to reference Greene, W. H. (2007). NLOGIT version 4.0: Reference guide. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software. Greene, W. H. (2007). NLOGIT version 4.0: Reference guide. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software.
41.
go back to reference Institute, S. A. S. (1990). The SAS system for windows. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc. Institute, S. A. S. (1990). The SAS system for windows. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc.
42.
go back to reference Aspinall, P. A., Johnson, Z. K., Azuara-Blanco, A., Montarzino, A., Brice, R., & Vickers, A. (2008). Evaluation of quality of life and priorities of patients with glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 49(5), 1907–1915.CrossRef Aspinall, P. A., Johnson, Z. K., Azuara-Blanco, A., Montarzino, A., Brice, R., & Vickers, A. (2008). Evaluation of quality of life and priorities of patients with glaucoma. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 49(5), 1907–1915.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Osoba, D., Hsu, M. A., Copley-Merriman, C., Coombs, J., Johnson, F. R., Hauber, B., et al. (2006). Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) domains during treatment. Quality of Life Research, 15(2), 273–283.PubMedCrossRef Osoba, D., Hsu, M. A., Copley-Merriman, C., Coombs, J., Johnson, F. R., Hauber, B., et al. (2006). Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) domains during treatment. Quality of Life Research, 15(2), 273–283.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Kaplan, R. M., Feeny, D., & Revicki, D. A. (1993). Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 467–475.PubMedCrossRef Kaplan, R. M., Feeny, D., & Revicki, D. A. (1993). Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 467–475.PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Tsevat, J. (2000). What do utilities measure? Medical Care, 38(Suppl 9), II160–164.PubMed Tsevat, J. (2000). What do utilities measure? Medical Care, 38(Suppl 9), II160–164.PubMed
46.
go back to reference Jones, K. H., Ford, D. V., Jones, P. A., John, A., Middleton, R. M., Lockhart-Jones, H., et al. (2013). How people with multiple sclerosis rate their quality of life: An EQ-5D survey via the UK MS register. PLoS One, 8(6), e65640.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Jones, K. H., Ford, D. V., Jones, P. A., John, A., Middleton, R. M., Lockhart-Jones, H., et al. (2013). How people with multiple sclerosis rate their quality of life: An EQ-5D survey via the UK MS register. PLoS One, 8(6), e65640.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271.CrossRef Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Boniwell, I., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Balancing one’s time perspective in pursuit of optimal functioning. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive Psychology in Practice (pp. 165–178). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Boniwell, I., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). Balancing one’s time perspective in pursuit of optimal functioning. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive Psychology in Practice (pp. 165–178). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
49.
go back to reference Revicki, D. A., & Kaplan, R. M. (1993). Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 477–487.PubMedCrossRef Revicki, D. A., & Kaplan, R. M. (1993). Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 2(6), 477–487.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Brown, M. M., Brown, G. C., Sharma, S., & Shah, G. (1999). Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 128(3), 324–330.PubMedCrossRef Brown, M. M., Brown, G. C., Sharma, S., & Shah, G. (1999). Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 128(3), 324–330.PubMedCrossRef
51.
go back to reference Sayao, A. L., Bueno, A. M., Devonshire, V., & Tremlett, H. (2011). The psychosocial and cognitive impact of longstanding ‘benign’ multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 17(11), 1375–1383.PubMedCrossRef Sayao, A. L., Bueno, A. M., Devonshire, V., & Tremlett, H. (2011). The psychosocial and cognitive impact of longstanding ‘benign’ multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 17(11), 1375–1383.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Ryan, M., & Skatun, D. (2004). Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Economics, 13(4), 397–402.PubMedCrossRef Ryan, M., & Skatun, D. (2004). Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Economics, 13(4), 397–402.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Quality of life and patient preferences: identification of subgroups of multiple sclerosis patients
Auteurs
Rosalba Rosato
Silvia Testa
Alessandra Oggero
Giorgia Molinengo
Antonio Bertolotto
Publicatiedatum
01-09-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0952-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2015

Quality of Life Research 9/2015 Naar de uitgave