首页> 外文期刊>Current medical research and opinion >Variation in the distribution of patient-reported outcomes based on different definitions of defining asthma severity.
【24h】

Variation in the distribution of patient-reported outcomes based on different definitions of defining asthma severity.

机译:根据定义哮喘严重程度的不同定义,患者报告的结果的分布存在差异。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to observe the variation in the distribution of health-related quality of life and work performance scale scores based on using different methods of determining asthma severity. METHODOLOGY: Five methods of determining asthma severity were used, including three patient-derived measures (patient perceived severity or PPS; overall symptom-derived severity or OSS; and nocturnal symptom-severity or NSS); and 2 methods using retrospective pharmacy claims (reliever/oral steroid use or ROSU and multi-drug use or MDU). Three levels of severity were examined: mild, moderate, and severe, requiring condensing some severity categories of several methods. Data were obtained from a cross-sectional mail survey of 603 adults with asthma in a US managed care organization linked to pharmaceutical/medical claims data. Patient-reported outcomes included the Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary Score (MCS) of the SF-36, the summary score (AQLQ) ofthe Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Work Performance Scale score (WPS) of the perceived work performance scale of the Functional Status Questionnaire. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine each method's ability to distinguish between severity levels. Descriptive statistics were used to observe differences in scale scores between methods. RESULTS: Within each method, significant severity effects (except MDU) were found for PCS, AQLQ, and WPS. In post-hoc analyses, mild-moderate and mild-severe comparisons were consistently significant (p < 0.05). In the cross-method analyses, method effects were found at all levels of severity for most scale scores with ranges increasing with increases in severity level. Within-method results were consistent with previous studies demonstrating a significant relationship between severity, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and work performance (WP). However, HRQL and WP scale scores varied by the method used to define severity. CONCLUSION: This variation should be considered when performing cross-study comparisons of burden of illness and treatment effects.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是根据使用不同的确定哮喘严重程度的方法,观察与健康相关的生活质量和工作绩效量表分数的分布变化。方法:采用了五种确定哮喘严重程度的方法,包括三种基于患者的测量方法(患者感知的严重程度或PPS;总体症状引起的严重程度或OSS;夜间症状的严重程度或NSS);和2种使用回顾性药房声明的方法(依赖/口服类固醇使用或ROSU和多种药物使用或MDU)。检查了三种严重程度:轻度,中度和严重,需要汇总几种方法的某些严重性类别。数据是从一家美国管理的护理组织对603名成年人哮喘的横断面邮件调查中获得的,与药物/医疗索赔数据相关。患者报告的结局包括SF-36的身体成分总评分(PCS)和心理成分总评分(MCS),哮喘生活质量问卷的总评分(AQLQ)和工作绩效量表评分(WPS)功能状态调查表的感知工作绩效量表。方差分析(ANOVA)用于检查每种方法区分严重性级别的能力。描述性统计用于观察方法之间的量表得分差异。结果:在每种方法中,对PCS,AQLQ和WPS都发现了严重的严重性影响(MDU除外)。在事后分析中,轻度-中度和轻度-重度比较始终具有显着性(p <0.05)。在跨方法分析中,对于大多数量表评分,在所有严重性级别上都发现了方法效果,范围随严重性级别的增加而增加。方法内的结果与以前的研究一致,表明严重程度,健康相关的生活质量(HRQL)与工作绩效(WP)之间存在显着的关系。但是,HRQL和WP量表分数因用于定义严重性的方法而异。结论:在对疾病负担和治疗效果进行交叉研究比较时,应考虑这种差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号