4.6 Article

Impact of Mobility Impairment on Indirect Costs and Health-Related Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054756

关键词

-

资金

  1. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.
  2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was conducted to estimate the indirect costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (utilities) of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients in the United States (US), and to determine the impact of worsening mobility on these parameters. In collaboration with the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) registry we conducted a cross-sectional study of participants who completed the biannual update and supplemental spring 2010 survey. Demographic, employment status, income, mobility impairment, and health utility data were collected from a sample of registry participants who met the study criteria and agreed to participate in the supplemental Mobility Study. Mean annual indirect costs per participant in 2011US$ and mean utilities for the population and for cohorts reporting different levels of mobility impairment were estimated. Analyses included 3,484 to 3,611 participants, based on survey completeness. Thirty-seven percent of registrants were not working or attending school and 46.7% of these reported retiring early. Indirect costs per participant per year, not including informal caregiver cost, were estimated at $30,601+/-31,184. The largest relative increase in indirect costs occurred at earlier mobility impairment stages, regardless of the measure used. Participants' mean utility score (0.73+/-0.18) was lower than that of a similarly aged sample from the general US population (0.87). As with indirect costs, larger decrements in utility were seen at earlier mobility impairment stages. These results suggest that mobility impairment may contribute to increases in indirect costs and declines in HRQoL in MS patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据