This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Background: Preference-based instruments are a specific type of health-related quality-of-life scale designed to measure the relative value of health. Because of this property, they are the appropriate measures of quality of life for cost-effectiveness analysis. Although preference-based scales are widely used, their validity has rarely been tested in specific patient groups.
Objectives: To assess quality of life using preference-based scales in a group of patients with PD and to compare these scores with measures of clinical severity and traditional quality of life.
Methods: Each patient was rated using the Disability and Distress Index (DDI), the Euroqol System (EQ-5D), and the Health Utilities Index Mark II (HUI). Clinical severity was measured using the Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) and PD Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) quality-of-life instrument. Results from preference-based instruments were compared with each other and with clinical measures of disease severity.
Results: One hundred subjects participated in the study, and 97 completed all preference-based instruments. Scores from all three instruments correlated well with the UPDRS and most domains of the PDQ-39. The mean scores for the DDI, HUI, and EQ-5D were 0.92 (range 0 to 1), 0.74 (range 0.19 to 1), and 0.58 (range −0.429 to 1). Differences between mean scores for the instruments were significant.
Conclusions: In the sample of patients with PD, the Disability and Distress Index, Euroqol System, and the Health Utilities Index Mark II correlate well with measures of disease severity and quality of life. However, they give strikingly different values. When applied in cost-effectiveness analysis, these discrepancies could result in substantially different cost-effectiveness ratios for PD-related interventions.
- Received October 23, 2001.
- Accepted in final form March 22, 2002.
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Costs and Utilization of New-to-Market Neurologic Medications
Dr. Robert J. Fox and Dr. Mandy Leonard