METHODS: A questionnaire survey was sent by e-mail to members of AOSpine to evaluate their familiarity and use of PROMs instruments and to assess the barriers to their use in spine care practice in LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME.
RESULTS: A total of 1634 AOSpine members from LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME answered the electronic questionnaire. The percentage of spine surgeons who were familiar with the generic health-related quality of life questionnaire was 71.7%. In addition, 31.9% of respondents did not use any PROMs routinely. The main barriers to implementing PROMs were lack of time to administer the questionnaires (57%) followed by lack of staff to assist in data collection (55%), and the long time to fill out the questionnaires (46%). The routine use of questionnaires was more frequent in NA and EU and less common in LA and ME (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: We found that 31.9% of spine surgeons do not use the PROMs questionnaire routinely. This appears to occur because of lack of knowledge regarding their importance, absence of reimbursement for this extra work, minimal financial support for clinical research, the cost of implementation, and lack of concern among physicians.
METHODS: Data from 87 patients with cervical cancer recruited from a referral hospital in Yogyakarta province, Indonesia, from an earlier study of health-related quality of life were used in this study. The differences among the utility scores derived from the four value sets were determined using the Friedman test. Performance of the psychometric properties of the four value sets versus visual analogue scale (VAS) was assessed. Intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots were used to test the agreement among the utility scores. Spearman ρ correlation coefficients were used to assess convergent validity between utility scores and patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. With respect to known-group validity, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine the differences in utility according to the stages of cancer.
RESULTS: There was significant difference among utility scores derived from the four value sets, among which the Malaysian value set yielded higher utility than the other three value sets. Utility obtained from the Malaysian value set had more agreements with VAS than the other value sets versus VAS (intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plot tests results). As for the validity, the four value sets showed equivalent psychometric properties as those that resulted from convergent and known-group validity tests.
CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of an Indonesian value set, the Malaysian value set was more preferable to be used compared with the other value sets. Further studies on the development of an Indonesian value set need to be conducted.
METHODS: Data collected from patients with ACS between 2008 and 2009 for a study on cardiac rehabilitation at the Sarawak General Hospital were used for this study. QOL data were obtained using a validated version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire at baseline and at 12 months. Health utility scores were calculated using visual analogue scale scores and utility tariffs from Malaysia and the United Kingdom.
RESULTS: Data from 104 subjects from the earlier study was used. The mean age was 56.1 years, with 88.5% being men. The mean hospitalization duration was 6.3 days. The mean utility score was 0.75 at baseline and 0.82 at 12 months. There was a statistically significant improvement in utility from baseline to 12 months based on the Malaysian tariff (P = 0.014) but not with the UK tariff (P = 0.086). The QOL of patients was associated with sex and diagnosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that there was a significant improvement in the QOL from baseline to 12 months. Only sex and diagnosis affected the QOL score at baseline because of limited variables available for testing. It also reconfirms the importance of applying the appropriate, country-specific utility tariffs in QOL studies. Despite limitations, the study is useful toward describing QOL among a group of Malaysian patients with ACS.
METHODS: Consecutive participants aged 18 years or older with a primary diagnosis of asthma, allergic rhinitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or rhinosinusitis were enrolled. Participants completed a survey detailing respiratory symptoms, HCRU, work productivity and activity impairment, and HRQOL. Locally sourced unit costs for each country were used in the calculation of total costs.
RESULTS: The study enrolled 5250 patients. Overall, the mean annual cost for patients with a respiratory disease was US $4191 (SGD 8489) per patient. For patients who reported impairment at work, the mean annual cost was US $7315 (SGD 10,244), with productivity loss being the highest cost component for all four diseases (US $6310 [SGD 9100]). On average, patients were impaired for one-third of their time at work and 5% of their work time missed because of respiratory disease, which resulted in a 36% reduction in productivity. Patients with a primary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease had the greatest impact on HRQOL.
CONCLUSIONS: In the Asia-Pacific, respiratory diseases have a significant impact on HCRU and associated costs, along with work productivity. Timely and effective management of these diseases has the potential to reduce disease burden and health care costs and improve work productivity and HRQOL.
OBJECTIVES: To determine a CE threshold for health care interventions in Malaysia.
METHODS: A cross-sectional, contingent valuation study was conducted using a stratified multistage cluster random sampling technique in four states in Malaysia. One thousand thirteen respondents were interviewed in person for their socioeconomic background, quality of life, and WTP for a hypothetical scenario.
RESULTS: The CE thresholds established using the nonparametric Turnbull method ranged from MYR12,810 to MYR22,840 (~US $4,000-US $7,000), whereas those estimated with the parametric interval regression model were between MYR19,929 and MYR28,470 (~US $6,200-US $8,900). Key factors that affected the CE thresholds were education level, estimated monthly household income, and the description of health state scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there is no single WTP value for a quality-adjusted life-year. The CE threshold estimated for Malaysia was found to be lower than the threshold value recommended by the World Health Organization.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to collect real-world cost and HRQOL data, and investigate their associations with multiple disease-severity indicators among AD patients in Thailand.
METHODS: We recruited AD patients aged ≥60 years accompanied by their caregivers at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital. A one-time structured interview was conducted to collect disease-severity indicators, HRQOL, and caregiving information using standardized tools. The hospital's database was used to retrieve healthcare resource utilization occurred over 6 months preceding the interview date. Costs were annualized and stratified based on cognitive status. Generalized linear models were employed to evaluate determinants of costs and HRQOL.
RESULTS: Among 148 community-dwelling patients, average annual total societal costs of AD care were $8014 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $7295-$8844) per patient. Total costs of patients with severe stage ($9860; 95% CI: $8785-$11 328) were almost twice as high as those of mild stage ($5524; 95% CI: $4649-$6593). The major cost driver was direct medical costs, particularly those incurred by AD prescriptions. Functional status was the strongest determinant for both total costs and patient's HRQOL (P value
METHODS: Women with or without SUI aged ≥21 years old were recruited. Subjects completed the International Consultation of Incontinence-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI-SF), International Consultation of Incontinence-Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life (ICIQ-LUTSqol), and EQ-5D questionnaires.
RESULTS: A total of 120 women with SUI and 145 controls participated. The ICIQ-LUTSqol total score (mean ± standard deviation) was significantly higher in the SUI group (38.96 ± 10.28) compared with the control group (20.78 ± 2.73) (P