STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional observational cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of preference-based quality of life (QOL) instruments in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Generic health status instruments (e.g., SF-36) or disease-specific health status measures (e.g., myelopathy scales) are typically used to measure QOL in patients with CSM; however, these instruments only examine a limited number of domains that contribute to QOL. An alternative is preference-based QOL methods, which integrate all factors contributing to QOL and provide a comprehensive individualized measure of how patients value their current health state. METHODS: We used four preference-based QOL methods to measure QOL in a cohort of 79 patients with CSM: 1) visual analogue scale, 2) standard gamble, 3) time trade-off, and 4) willingness to pay. We measured health status with the SF-36 and with CSM disease-specific scales devised by Nurick, Harsh, Cooper, and the Japanese Orthopedic Association. We used multivariate linear regression techniques to examine the relationships between preference-based QOL, generic health status, CSM disease-specific health status, and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Median preference-based QOL measurements for the CSM cohort were as follows: visual analogue scale, 0.50; standard gamble, 0.79; time trade-off, 0.75, and willingness to pay, $38,256. Preference-based QOL was not well explained by generic health status, CSM disease-specific health status, or patient characteristics, as shown by regression models that were unable to account more than 21% of the variation in preference-based QOL (R < or =0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Preference-based QOL in patients with CSM is poorly correlated with generic health status, CSM disease-specific health status, or patient characteristics. Studies of CSM and other spine diseases should consider incorporating preference-based QOL measures for a fuller evaluation of the impact of spine disease and its treatment on QOL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
King et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: