4.6 Article

Quality of Life and Costs in Parkinson's Disease: A Cross Sectional Study in Hungary

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107704

关键词

-

资金

  1. Tarsadalmi Megujulas Operativ Program [TAMOP 4.2.1.B-09/1/KMR]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patient reported outcomes and costs of illness are useful to capture some of the multiple effects of a disease and its treatments. Our aim was to assess quality of life (QoL) and costs of Parkinson's disease (PD) in Hungary, and to analyze their associations. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted in one neurology university clinic. Clinical characteristics, PD related resource utilizations and productivity loss in the past 12 months were recorded; the Hoehn&Yahr (HY) scale, PDQ-39 and EQ-5D questionnaires were applied. Cost calculation was performed from the societal perspective. Results: 110 patients (34.5% female) were involved with mean age of 63.3 (SD = 11.3) and disease duration of 8.2 (SD = 5.8) years. PDQ-39 summary score was 48.1 (SD = 13.4). The average EQ-5D score was 0.59 (SD = 0.28), and was significantly lower than the population norm in age-groups 45-74. The correlation was significant between EQ-5D and PDQ-39 (20.47, p = 0.000), the HY scale and EQ-5D (-0.3416, p = 0.0008) and PDQ-39 (0.3419, p = 0.0006) scores. The total mean cost was is an element of 6030.2 (SD = 6163.0)/patient/year (direct medical 35.7%, direct non-medical 29.4%, indirect cost 34.9%). A one year increase in disease duration and 0.1 decrease of the EQ-5D utility score increase the yearly costs by 8 to 10%, and 7.8%, respectively. The effect of the PDQ-39 score on total cost was not significant. Conclusions: Disease severity and public health importance of PD are clearly demonstrated by the magnitude of QoL loss. PD-related costs are substantial, but are much lower in Hungary than in Western European countries. Disease duration and EQ-5D score are significant proxy of costs.

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