4.6 Article

Migraine frequency and health utilities: Findings from a multisite survey

期刊

VALUE IN HEALTH
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 315-321

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00246.x

关键词

health utility; HUI; migraine; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Assess the relationship between migraine frequency and health utility. Methods: Patients aged >= 18 years diagnosed with episodic migraine were enrolled at three US sites representing varied models of health-care delivery. All subjects completed a questionnaire that included demographic and clinical information, a migraine-specific disability questionnaire, and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3). The HUI3 is a generic health status and health-related quality-of-life measure. HUI3 health status data are translated into utility scores anchored by 0 (dead) and 1 (perfect health). Results: The study enrolled 150 patients. The mean age was 44 years and 87% were female. Mean (+/- SD) monthly migraine frequency was 4.4 +/- 3.6, with 34% reporting <= 2 migraines per month and 20% reporting > 6 migraines per month. The mean (+/- SD) HUI3 score was 0.62 +/- 0.26. After controlling for study center, demographics, comorbidities, migraine characteristics, and level of migraine disruptiveness, migraine frequency was found to be significantly (P < 0.05) and negatively associated with HUI3 scores. Subjects with > 6 migraines per month had an adjusted mean HUI3 score of 0.41; the corresponding mean for those reporting <= 2 migraines per month was 0.67. Migraine frequency was positively associated with higher levels of disability for the emotion, cognition, and pain components of the HUI3. Conclusions: Among this group of care-seeking patients, migraineurs' health utilities were inversely related to headache frequency. Although these data may not be generalizable to the entire migraine population, they may be useful in assessing the comparative cost-effectiveness of preventive migraine therapies.

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