 |
|
Quality of Life Is Favorable for Most Patients With Multiple Sclerosis
A Population-based Cohort Study
Sean J. Pittock, MD;
William T. Mayr, MD;
Robyn L. McClelland, PhD;
Neal W. Jorgensen, BS;
Stephen D. Weigand, MS;
John H. Noseworthy, MD;
Moses Rodriguez, MD
Arch Neurol. 2004;61:679-686.
Background Quality of life (QOL) is becoming an increasingly important factor in measurement of disease impact as well as an outcome measure in clinical trials.
Objectives To study the QOL of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in a population-based prevalence cohort and compare it with the general US population.
Design Population-based prevalence cohort.
Setting Olmsted County, Minn, population.
Participants All patients with definite MS (N = 201) alive and residing in Olmsted County on December 1, 2000.
Intervention None.
Main Outcome Measures The expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Health Survey (MSQOL-54), which consisted of Short Form 36 (SF-36) with an additional 18 items pertinent to MS.
Results The MSQOL-54 form was completed by 185 patients. Patients with MS had worse scores than the general US population with respect to physical functioning, vitality, and general health dimensions of the SF-36 QOL measure. Many QOL domains (pain, role emotional, mental health, and social functioning) were, however, similar for the 2000 MS cohort compared with the general US population. Duration of MS and EDSS score correlated significantly with physical functioning (P<.001). The QOL correlation with EDSS score was less than expected. No significant difference in the scores for the 8 QOL dimensions were found for patients with quick vs slow progression (quick progression defined as <5 years from onset to EDSS score of 3). The majority of patients with MS (77%) were mostly satisfied or delighted with their QOL.
Conclusion Though MS can cause significant disability, most patients with MS in the Olmsted County prevalence cohort continue to report a good QOL.
From the Departments of Neurology (Drs Pittock, Mayr, Noseworthy, and Rodriguez) and Biostatistics (Dr McClelland and Messrs Jorgensen and Weigand) and the Mayo Medical School and Graduate School (Dr Rodriguez), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Use of health care services and satisfaction with care in people with multiple sclerosis in Stockholm County: A population-based study
Gottberg et al.
Mult Scler 2008;14:962-971.
ABSTRACT
Validation of the Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life questionnaire
Simeoni et al.
Mult Scler 2008;14:219-230.
ABSTRACT
Effects of education level and employment status on HRQoL in early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
Patti et al.
Mult Scler 2007;13:783-791.
ABSTRACT
Health-related quality of life in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis
Beiske et al.
Mult Scler 2007;13:386-392.
ABSTRACT
Coping and quality of life in one hundred and thirty five subjects with multiple sclerosis
Montel and Bungener
Mult Scler 2007;13:393-401.
ABSTRACT
Palliative care in patients with severe multiple sclerosis: two case reports and a survey among German MS neurologists
Kumpfel et al.
Palliat Med 2007;21:109-114.
ABSTRACT
Locomotor training using body weight support on a treadmill improves mobility in persons with multiple sclerosis: a pilot study
Giesser et al.
Mult Scler 2007;13:224-231.
ABSTRACT
Health-related quality of life in a population-based sample of people with multiple sclerosis in Stockholm County
Gottberg et al.
Mult Scler 2006;12:605-612.
ABSTRACT
The scope and nature of pain in persons with multiple sclerosis
Ehde et al.
Mult Scler 2006;12:629-638.
ABSTRACT
Adaptation Is Favorable for Most Patients With Multiple Sclerosis
Janssens and Hintzen
Arch Neurol 2004;61:1807-1807.
FULL TEXT
Quality of Life Is Not Favorable for Most Patients With Multiple Sclerosis--Reply
Pittock et al.
Arch Neurol 2004;61:1808-1808.
FULL TEXT
Quality of Life Is Not Favorable for Most Patients With Multiple Sclerosis
Mitchell et al.
Arch Neurol 2004;61:1807-1808.
FULL TEXT
From the library
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2004;88:1356-1356.
FULL TEXT
|
