4.7 Article

Predictors of health-related quality of life in patients with chronic liver disease

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 30, Issue 5, Pages 469-476

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04061.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Liver Disease Outcomes Fund of the Center for Liver Diseases at Inova Fairfax Hospital
  2. Inova Health System

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Background Patient-reported outcomes like health-related quality of life (HRQL) have become increasingly important for full assessment of patients with chronic liver diseases (CLD). Aim To explore the relative impact of different types of liver disease on HRQL as well as predictors of HRQL domains in CLD. Methods Our HRQL databases with Short-Form 36 (SF-36) data were used. Scores for each of SF-36 scales (PF - physical functioning, RP - role functioning, BP - bodily pain, GH - general health, VT - vitality, SF - social functioning, RE - role emotional and MH - mental health, MCS - mental component score, PCS - physical component score) were compared between different types of CLD as well as other variables. Results Complete data were available for 1103 CLD patients. Demographic and clinical data included: age 54.2 +/- 12.0 years, 40% female, 761 (69%) with cirrhosis. Analysis revealed that age correlated significantly (P < 0.05) with worsening HRQL on every scale of the SF-36. Female patients had more HRQL impairments in PF, RP, BP, GH, VT and MH scales of SF-36 (Delta scale score: 6.6-10.7, P < 0.05). Furthermore, cirrhotic patients had more impairment of HRQL in every scale of SF-36 (Delta scale score: 6.6-43.0, P < 0.05). In terms of diagnostic groups, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease patients showed more impairment of HRQL. Conclusions Analysis of this large CLD cohort suggests that a number of important clinicodemographic factors are associated with HRQL impairment. These findings contribute to the full understanding of the total impact of CLD on patients' health.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available