4.4 Article

The Burden of Bladder Pain in Five European Countries: A Cross-sectional Study

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 99, 期 -, 页码 84-91

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.08.038

关键词

-

资金

  1. Astellas
  2. Pfizer
  3. Eli Lilly
  4. Astellas Pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To estimate the burden of illness associated with bladder pain in 5 European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with a diagnosis of bladder pain (ie, unpleasant sensation, pain, pressure, or discomfort related to the urinary bladder) were identified from data collected by the cross-sectional National Health and Wellness Survey performed in 2013. Propensity score matching was used to construct a comparator group without bladder pain (1 case: 2 controls). Assessments were performed for several outcomes including health-related quality of life (HRQoL; 36-item Short-Form, version 2), work-related function (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire), employment status, and all-cause healthcare resource use. RESULTS We identified 275 patients with a physician diagnosis of bladder pain, 274 of whom were successfully matched to 548 controls without bladder pain. Compared with matched controls, patients with bladder pain had significantly impaired HRQoL (mental component summary: 38.5 vs 44.5; physical component summary: 38.9 vs 47.8; P<.001). Overall work productivity loss was significantly greater in patients with bladder pain compared with matched controls (41.7% vs 21.5%; P<.001). Patients with bladder pain were also significantly more likely to use allcause healthcare resources and make more visits to healthcare providers in the previous 6 months than matched controls (P<.001 for all outcomes). CONCLUSION Bladder pain is associated with a considerable burden in Europe in terms of impaired HRQoL and work productivity, and increased healthcare resource use. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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