4.2 Article

Health-related quality of life measured by the Short Form 36 in immune thrombocytopenic purpura: a cross-sectional survey in China

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 78, 期 6, 页码 518-523

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2007.00844.x

关键词

idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura; health-related quality of life; Short Form 36; China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the quality of life (QoL) of Chinese adults with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). Methods: The Chinese (mainland) version of Medical Outcome Study SF-36 form (SF-36) Health Survey was used to measure health-related QoL of 236 adults with ITP in a cross-sectional study. Results: Comparison of SF-36 subscores of patients with ITP with healthy individuals revealed the reduction of QoL in all of the eight SF-36 dimensions. The difference on statistical significance presented in six of eight dimensions of SF-36 including physical functioning (PF), role limitations due to physical problems, body pain, general health perception (GH), social functioning (SF), and role limitations due to emotional problems (RE) between the patients with ITP and the normal population (P < 0.01). The acute ITP group showed better scores in three dimensions including GH, energy/vitality, and RE than chronic ITP (P < 0.01). Meanwhile through classification with platelet count, three subgroups of patients also experienced significant differences in PF, GH, and SF from the eight dimensions. Age was a significant negative predictor of all eight dimensions other than the SF while current platelet count was a significant negative predictor of GH. Moreover, the treatment cost and family income also influenced the QoL scores. The subjective feeling of fear about bleeding had a detrimental impact on QoL. Conclusions: QoL was impaired in patients with ITP, especially in the acute patients. The platelet count and the feeling of fear about bleeding had a detrimental impact on QoL.

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