4.3 Article

Factors associated with impaired quality of life in French patients with chronic idiopathic constipation: a cross-sectional study

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000595

关键词

chronic constipation; quality of life; treatment satisfaction

资金

  1. BIOCODEX

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveChronic idiopathic constipation can impact the health-related quality of life (QoL). We aimed to evaluate QoL in French patients with different clinical types of chronic constipation.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, 338 general practitioners included 1710 consecutive adult patients who fulfilled the Rome III criteria for constipation and agreed to complete Patient-Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life and Symptom questionnaires. Sociodemographic and medical data were collected. Multivariate analyses enabled identification of factors associated with poor QoL using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).ResultsOverall, 1673 patients were eligible for analyses; 32% had infrequent evacuation (IE) of feces, 24% had difficult evacuation (DE) of feces, and 44% had both (IE+DE). The mean global Patient-Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score was 1.9 (95% CI: 1.9-2.0), with a significantly worse QoL for IE+DE patients (mean 2.0; 95% CI: 2.0-2.1); 23% of patients reported a poor QoL, that is, a more than 2.4 (29% in IE+DE group, P<0.0001). Poor QoL was significantly associated with psychosocial parameters, associated digestive symptoms, but the main factors were the use of rectal treatment (OR 2.5; 95% CI: 1.9-3.3), one or less defecation/week (OR 3.5; 95% CI: 2.2-5.7), and weak/null perceived treatment efficiency (OR 4.3; 95% CI: 2.8-6.5).ConclusionChronic constipation is associated with a significant decrease in QoL, especially in patients suffering from both infrequent and DE of feces and feeling unsatisfied by their treatments. Copyright (C) 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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