Search

Introduction: The EQ-5D is a widely-used, standardised, quality of life measure producing health profiles, indices and states. The aims of this study were to assess the role of various factors in how people with Multiple Sclerosis rate their quality of life, based on responses to the EQ-5D received via the web portal of the UK MS Register., Methods: The 4516 responses to the EQ-5D (between May 2011 and April 2012) were collated with basic demographic and descriptive MS data and the resulting dataset was analysed in SPSS (v.20)., Results: The mean health state for people with MS was 59.73 (SD 22.4, median 61), compared to the UK population mean of 82.48 (which is approximately 1SD above the cohort mean). The characteristics of respondents with high health states (at or above +1SD) were: better health profiles (most predictive dimension: Usual Activities), higher health indices, younger age, shorter durations of MS, female gender, relapsing-remitting MS, higher educational attainment and being in paid employment (all p-values<0.001). Conversely, the characteristics of respondents with low health states (at or below -1SD) were: poorer health profiles (most predictive dimension: Mobility), lower health indices, older age, longer durations of MS, male gender, progressive MS, lower educational attainment and having an employment status of sick/disabled (p = 0.0014 for age, all other p-values<0.001). Particular living arrangements were not associated with either the high or low health status groups., Conclusions: This large-scale study has enabled in-depth analyses on how people with MS rate their quality of life, and it provides new knowledge on the various factors that contribute to their self-assessed health status. These findings demonstrate the impact of MS on quality of life, and they can be used to inform care provision and further research, to work towards enhancing the quality of life of people with MS.

Background: This review determined the most commonly used, and reliable, measures for assessing clinical outcomes for multiple sclerosis (MS). Objectives: It was anticipated that this would facilitate the development of a common set of metrics, and aid reaching a consensus regarding the outcome measures that are typically used in the field of MS clinical research. Major findings: A thorough literature review of clinical outcome measures for MS produced 166 measures that have been used in this context. This list was then refined by discussion with a panel of consultant neurologists, which reduced the list to 23 commonly employed tools. This shortlist was then further refined through surveying 41 centres for MS treatment, which reduced the shortlist to 16 measures. The properties of these scales, in terms of their symptom/function domains, their specificity for MS, their administration characteristics, and their reliability and validity for MS, are all discussed. Conclusions: Conclusions regarding the development of potential sets of assessment measures for MS, which encompass broad symptom/function domains, and which are sensitive to the practical requirements of administration within clinical contexts, are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to fully understand and explore the effectiveness of any intervention for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS), it is important to have robust, valid, reliable, and universally applied measures. The recent article, ‘Disability outcome measures in multiple sclerosis clinical trials’ by Cohen, Reingold, Polman and Wolinsky (2012), explores this issue in regards to the effective measurement of MS-related disability, and the utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures, whilst highlighting the need for collaboration between the academic and clinical communities. Although it is important to examine disability measures, it is also equally important to recognise that physical function is only one aspect of a person’s experience; for example, quality of life and psychological well-being are also important aspects to assess. The application of e-health technologies and patient registers could be a useful method of gaining additional information, using patient-reported outcomes. This commentary explores these issues in relation to points raised by the Cohen et al. paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]