3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Quality of life and health status in pediatric tonsil and adenoid disease

Journal

ARCHIVES OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY
Volume 126, Issue 1, Pages 45-48

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archotol.126.1.45

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the baseline global health status and quality of life (QOL) in children with tonsil and adenoid disease. Design: Cross-sectional multicenter survey series. Settings: A tertiary academic pediatric specialty hospital and a tertiary academic hospital in 2 different cities. Patients and Other Participants: Consecutive series of 55 parents of children who were seen for tonsil and adenoid disease. Intervention and Method: Cross-sectional survey of the health status of affected children to assess their QOL and its relationship to tonsil and adenoid disease. Main Outcome Measures: Quality-of-life subscale scores: of affected children on the Child Health Questionnaire version PF28 (CHQ-PF28); comparisons of population data from healthy normal children and children with asthma and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Results: The overall health status and QOL of children with tonsil and adenoid disease is significantly worse than those of healthy normal children, as demonstrated by lower mean scores on several CHQ-PF28 subscales, including general health, physical functioning, behavior, bodily pain, and parental impact (emotional). In addition, the general health perception of children with tonsil and adenoid disease is similar to the perceptions of children with asthma and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, but several aspects of health status, as measured by CHQ-PF28 subscale scores, were significantly worse in children with tonsil and adenoid disease. Conclusion: The health status impact of tonsil and adenoid disease appears to be quite significant, particularly in aspects related to the parental impact of the child's disease.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available