4.5 Article

Quality of life in chronic illness: children, parents and paediatricians have different, but stable perceptions

期刊

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
卷 97, 期 8, 页码 1118-1124

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.00847.x

关键词

chronically ill children; Health Utilities Index; perception; proxy; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Quality of life assessments can be helpful to estimate the well-being of chronically ill children. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in perception of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among children, parents and paediatricians at the time of diagnosis and after initial treatment in four chronic diseases. Methods: HRQoL was assessed with the Health Utilities Index mark 3 (HUI3). The HUI3 consists of eight attributes (vision, hearing, speech, ambulation, dexterity, emotion, cognition and pain). Results: Nineteen paediatricians and 60 patients (aged 10-17 years) and their parents with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, asthma or with cystic fibrosis admitted for pneumonia participated in the study. Health and well-being perceptions were clearly different among paediatricians, parents and patients, both at diagnosis and after initial treatment. Perception differences were more prominent in the subjective attributes, emotion and pain. The agreement for these attributes was 23% and 5%, respectively. Paediatricians assessed the patients to have less pain than the patients and parents did. The reverse was true for the attribute emotion. At follow-up, the agreement was higher for the attributes ambulation and pain. Conclusion: At the onset of a chronic disease and after initial treatment, paediatricians, parents and children have different perceptions of the child's quality of life, particularly as to the subjective attributes pain and emotion. In view of these differences in perception among patients, their caregivers and paediatricians, this study suggests that whenever possible, multi-respondent assessment of HRQoL should be considered.

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