Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 6/2014

01-08-2014

Understanding the relative importance of preserving functional abilities in Alzheimer’s disease in the United States and Germany

Auteurs: A. Brett Hauber, Ateesha F. Mohamed, F. Reed Johnson, Michael Cook, H. Michael Arrighi, Jing Zhang, Michael Grundman

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2014

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

To estimate the relative importance that Alzheimer’s disease (AD) caregivers in the United States and Germany place on preserving patients’ ability to perform activities of daily living.

Methods

US and German residents providing care for a person with AD completed an online preference survey. Each respondent completed five best–worst scaling questions. Each question related to five of 10 activities from the Disability Assessment for Dementia scale. Preference weights, indicating the relative importance of preserving the ability to perform these 10 activities for 36 months, were estimated using maximum-difference scaling. A separate model was estimated for each country.

Results

Four hundred and three US and 400 German caregivers completed the survey. In both countries, preserving a patients’ ability to use the toilet without accidents was the most important activity and handling money was the least important activity. There were few differences between US and German caregivers in the relative importance across activities.

Conclusions

Caregivers generally placed greater importance on preserving basic activities of daily living than on preserving instrumental activities of daily living. Understanding differences in the relative importance of functional items in the DAD may contribute to a better understanding of the benefits of different AD treatment and support measures.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Brookmeyer, R., Johnson, E., Ziegler-Graham, K., & Arrighi, H. M. (2007). Forecasting the global burden of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 3(3), 186–191.CrossRef Brookmeyer, R., Johnson, E., Ziegler-Graham, K., & Arrighi, H. M. (2007). Forecasting the global burden of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 3(3), 186–191.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Alzheimer’s Association. (2012). 2012 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 8(2), 1–72. Alzheimer’s Association. (2012). 2012 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 8(2), 1–72.
3.
go back to reference Alzhiemer’s Disease International. World Alzheimer Report 2009. Prince, M., Sousa, R., Albanese, E., Ribeir, W. S., Honyashiki, M. (eds.). London: Alzhiemer’s Disease International. Alzhiemer’s Disease International. World Alzheimer Report 2009. Prince, M., Sousa, R., Albanese, E., Ribeir, W. S., Honyashiki, M. (eds.). London: Alzhiemer’s Disease International.
5.
go back to reference Burns, A. (2000). The burden of Alzheimer’s disease. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 3, S31–S38.CrossRef Burns, A. (2000). The burden of Alzheimer’s disease. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 3, S31–S38.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Mohamed, S., Rosenheck, R., Lyketsos, C. G., & Schneider, L. S. (2010). Caregiver burden in Alzheimer disease: Cross-sectional and longitudinal patient correlates. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 8(10), 917–927.CrossRef Mohamed, S., Rosenheck, R., Lyketsos, C. G., & Schneider, L. S. (2010). Caregiver burden in Alzheimer disease: Cross-sectional and longitudinal patient correlates. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 8(10), 917–927.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Vellas, B., Andrieu, S., Sampaio, C., Coley, N., & Wilcock, G. (2008). Endpoints for trials in Alzheimer’s disease: a European task force consensus. The Lancet Neurology, 7(5), 436–450.CrossRef Vellas, B., Andrieu, S., Sampaio, C., Coley, N., & Wilcock, G. (2008). Endpoints for trials in Alzheimer’s disease: a European task force consensus. The Lancet Neurology, 7(5), 436–450.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Arons, A. M. M., Krabbe, P. F. M., Scholzel-Dorenbos, C. J. M., van der Wilt, G. J., & Olde Rikkert, M. G. M. (2012). Thurstone scaling revealed systematic health-state valuation differences between patients with dementia and proxies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 897–905.PubMedCrossRef Arons, A. M. M., Krabbe, P. F. M., Scholzel-Dorenbos, C. J. M., van der Wilt, G. J., & Olde Rikkert, M. G. M. (2012). Thurstone scaling revealed systematic health-state valuation differences between patients with dementia and proxies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 897–905.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Hauber, A. B., Johnson, F. R., Fillit, H., Mohamed, A. F., Leibman, C., Arrighi, H. M., et al. (2009). Older Americans’ risk-benefit preferences for modifying the course of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 23(1), 23–32.PubMedCrossRef Hauber, A. B., Johnson, F. R., Fillit, H., Mohamed, A. F., Leibman, C., Arrighi, H. M., et al. (2009). Older Americans’ risk-benefit preferences for modifying the course of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 23(1), 23–32.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Karlawish, J., Cary, M. S., Rubright, J., & Tenhave, T. (2008). How redesigning AD clinical trials might increase study partners’ willingness to participate. Neurology, 71(23), 1883–1888.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Karlawish, J., Cary, M. S., Rubright, J., & Tenhave, T. (2008). How redesigning AD clinical trials might increase study partners’ willingness to participate. Neurology, 71(23), 1883–1888.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Negrín, M. A., Pinilla, J., & León, C. J. (2008). Willingness to pay for alternative policies for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Health Economics, Policy, and Law, 3, 257–275.PubMedCrossRef Negrín, M. A., Pinilla, J., & León, C. J. (2008). Willingness to pay for alternative policies for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Health Economics, Policy, and Law, 3, 257–275.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference David, H. A. (1969). The method of paired comparisons. London: Charles Griffin and Company Ltd. David, H. A. (1969). The method of paired comparisons. London: Charles Griffin and Company Ltd.
13.
go back to reference Louviere, J. J. (1993). Best–worst or maximum difference measurement model: applications to behavioral research in marketing. Presented at the Behavioral Research Conference. AZ: Phoenix. Louviere, J. J. (1993). Best–worst or maximum difference measurement model: applications to behavioral research in marketing. Presented at the Behavioral Research Conference. AZ: Phoenix.
14.
go back to reference Flynn, T. N. (2010). Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: Recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes & Research, 10(3), 259–267.CrossRef Flynn, T. N. (2010). Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: Recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes & Research, 10(3), 259–267.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J., Peters, T. J., & Coast, J. (2007). Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 171–189.PubMedCrossRef Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J., Peters, T. J., & Coast, J. (2007). Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 171–189.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Gélinas, I., Gauthier, L., McIntyre, M., & Gauthier, S. (1999). Development of a functional measure for persons with Alzheimer’s disease: The disability assessment for dementia. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53(5), 471–481.PubMedCrossRef Gélinas, I., Gauthier, L., McIntyre, M., & Gauthier, S. (1999). Development of a functional measure for persons with Alzheimer’s disease: The disability assessment for dementia. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53(5), 471–481.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Mohamed, A. F., Hauber, A. B., Johnson, F. R., & Coon, C. D. (2010). Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes. The Patient, 3(4), 217–227.PubMedCrossRef Mohamed, A. F., Hauber, A. B., Johnson, F. R., & Coon, C. D. (2010). Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes. The Patient, 3(4), 217–227.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Hauber, A. B., Mohamed, A. F., Johnson, F. R., Oyelowo, O., Curtis, B. H., & Coon, C. (2010). Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis. Quality of Life Research, 19(5), 701–709.PubMedCrossRef Hauber, A. B., Mohamed, A. F., Johnson, F. R., Oyelowo, O., Curtis, B. H., & Coon, C. (2010). Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis. Quality of Life Research, 19(5), 701–709.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Johnson, F. R., Hauber, A. B., Osoba, D., Hsu, M. A., Coombs, J., & Copley-Merriman, C. (2006). Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Quality Life Research, 15, 285–298.CrossRef Johnson, F. R., Hauber, A. B., Osoba, D., Hsu, M. A., Coombs, J., & Copley-Merriman, C. (2006). Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Quality Life Research, 15, 285–298.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Osoba, D., Hsu, 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 Life Research, 15, 273–283.CrossRef Osoba, D., Hsu, 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 Life Research, 15, 273–283.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Feldman, H. F., Baelen, B. V., Kavanagh, S. M., & Torfs, K. E. L. (2005). Cognition, function, and caregiving time patterns in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease: A 12-month analysis. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 19, 29–36.PubMedCrossRef Feldman, H. F., Baelen, B. V., Kavanagh, S. M., & Torfs, K. E. L. (2005). Cognition, function, and caregiving time patterns in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease: A 12-month analysis. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 19, 29–36.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Arrighi, H. M., Gelinas, I., McLaughlin, T. P., Buchanan, J., & Gauthier, S. (2013). Longitudinal changes in functional ability in Alzheimer’s disease patients. International Psychogeriatrics, 25, 927–936.CrossRef Arrighi, H. M., Gelinas, I., McLaughlin, T. P., Buchanan, J., & Gauthier, S. (2013). Longitudinal changes in functional ability in Alzheimer’s disease patients. International Psychogeriatrics, 25, 927–936.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Feldman, H., Sauter, A., Donald, A., Gelinas, I., Gauther, S., Torfs, K., et al. (2001). The Disability Assessment for Dementia scale: A 12-month study of functional ability in mild to moderate severity Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 15, 89–95.PubMedCrossRef Feldman, H., Sauter, A., Donald, A., Gelinas, I., Gauther, S., Torfs, K., et al. (2001). The Disability Assessment for Dementia scale: A 12-month study of functional ability in mild to moderate severity Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 15, 89–95.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Understanding the relative importance of preserving functional abilities in Alzheimer’s disease in the United States and Germany
Auteurs
A. Brett Hauber
Ateesha F. Mohamed
F. Reed Johnson
Michael Cook
H. Michael Arrighi
Jing Zhang
Michael Grundman
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0620-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2014

Quality of Life Research 6/2014 Naar de uitgave