4.5 Article

Constipation severity is associated with productivity losses and healthcare utilization in patients with chronic constipation

期刊

UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL
卷 2, 期 2, 页码 138-147

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/2050640614528175

关键词

Chronic constipation; cost-of-illness study; direct cost; functional constipation; healthcare utilization; irritable bowel syndrome; indirect cost; productivity loss

资金

  1. Shire Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We sought to evaluate the association between constipation severity, productivity losses and healthcare utilization in a national sample of Italian patients with chronic non-organic constipation (CC) Methods: We enrolled 878 outpatients with CC. Clinical and demographic data were collected by physicians during clinical examinations. Patients completed a self-administered questionnaire (Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms, PAC-SYM; Work Productivity and Activity Impairment; healthcare utilization, and Symptoms Checklist 90 Revised - Somatization Scale, SCL-90 R). Results: Mean PAC-SYM score was 1.62 +/- 0.69. Mean weekly sick time due to constipation was 2.7 +/- 8.6 h and productivity losses due to presenteeism was 19.7% +/- 22.3%. Adjusted productivity losses in patients with severe CC (PAC-SYM score 2.3-4.0) compared to patients with mild symptoms (PAC-SYM score 0.0-1.0) was Italian Purchase Power Parity US$ 6160. Constipation severity (PAC-SYM quintiles) was associated with higher healthcare utilization (RRPAC-SYM (4/0)1.84; p-value for linear trend <0.01). After adjustment for somatization scores, the association of constipation severity with productivity losses and healthcare utilization rates was attenuated yet statistically significant. Conclusions: We observed a graded increase in productivity losses and healthcare utilization with increasing constipation severity. Further studies should evaluate whether significant savings might be achieved with regimens aimed at reducing the constipation severity.

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

4.5
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