4.5 Article

A multi-centre study on quality of life and absenteeism in patients with CRS referred for endoscopic surgery

Journal

RHINOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 4, Pages 420-428

Publisher

INT RHINOLOGIC SOC
DOI: 10.4193/Rhino11.101

Keywords

chronic rhinosinusitis; nasal polyps; recurrent acute rhinosinusitis; health-related quality of life; absenteeism

Funding

  1. Swedish ACTA Foundation
  2. Skane county council's research and development foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: This study summarises the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores and absenteeism caused by sinus problems in patients awaiting surgery with the diagnoses recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRS+NP) or CRS without nasal polyps (CRS-NP), in a prospective multi-centre study Methodology: Two hundred and seven patients with RARS, CRS+NP or CRS-NP were enrolled. (EPOS)-O-3 definitions of CRS and NP were used. The patients completed the 22 Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), the short-form 36-item questionnaire (SF-36), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD) and a total Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) regarding rhinosinusitis symptoms. Results: SNOT-22 and VAS scores indicated severe disease. Comparison of the HRQOL scores in the three rhinosinusitis subgroups showed statistical differences in nine of the SNOT-22 items and in the SF-36 subscale of bodily pain. Mean scores of SF-36 were significantly lower than that of the normal Swedish population. According to the HAD scores, 28% of the patients had probable or possible anxiety or depression disorder. Fifty-seven percent of the patients reported absenteeism from work due to sinus problems. Conclusions: RARS, CRS+NP and CRS-NP significantly decrease HRQOL. Some statistically significant differences in HRQOL were found between the three rhinosinusitis subgroups. Absenteeism due to chronic sinus conditions is considerable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available