4.2 Article

Quality of life of dogs with skin disease and of their owners. Part 2: administration of a questionnaire in various skin diseases and correlation to efficacy of therapy

期刊

VETERINARY DERMATOLOGY
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 344-351

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2011.00956.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A previously validated 15-item questionnaire on dogs' life quality (QoL1) and that of their owners (QoL2) was applied in a multicentre study to owners of 200 dogs with different dermatological conditions, together with a question on the owner-perceived disease severity (S). Factor analysis was applied to the whole questionnaire. The correlation of S with QoL1 and QoL2 scores was evaluated using Spearman's rank correlation tests. Owner sex, age, educational level and willingness to pay for a potential definitive cure of the disease were recorded, and compared with quality of life (QoL) scores. In 23 atopic dogs, CADESI-03, pruritus Visual Analogue Scale and QoL scores were obtained before and after therapy, and their correlation was evaluated with linear regression. Factor analysis revealed that three factors (S, QoL1 and QoL2) explained 75% of the variance. Owner-perceived severity correlated significantly with QoL1 and QoL2 (P = 0.002 and P = 0.015, respectively). The five diseases with the worst QoL scores were scabies, pododermatitis, complicated atopic dermatitis, pemphigus foliaceus and endocrine alopecia. Pruritic diseases did not give significantly higher QoL1 or QoL2 scores compared with nonpruritic diseases (P = 0.19, Kruskall-Wallis test). Owner sex, age or educational level did not influence QoL scores. Female sex, a younger age and a higher educational level were significantly associated with more willingness to pay. In atopic dogs, all the scores decreased after therapy, but post-treatment CADESI-03 and Visual Analogue Scale scores did not correlate with QoL1 and QoL2. Questions related to the burden of maintenance therapy showed the lowest improvements in score.

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

4.2
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