This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Prosser, L. A Articles by Weinstein, M. C Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Prosser, L. A Articles by Weinstein, M. C Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Multiple Sclerosis Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Patient and community preferences for treatments and health states in multiple sclerosis

Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Boston, MA, USA, lprosser{at}hms.harvard.edu

Karen M Kuntz

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Amit Bar-Or

Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Institute and McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Milton C Weinstein

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Objective: To examine preferences for treatments and health states for patients with relapsing-remitting MS and members of the community. Methods: A survey was developed to evaluate health-related quality-of-life measures (utilities) for three treatments and six MS health states using a utility-elicitatio n software package, U-Titer II. Sixty-two MS patients at two large teaching hospitals in Boston, MA, and 67 members of the general community in San Diego, C A, completed the health-related quality-of-life survey using a computer. Results: A ssessment of quality of life decreased as disability level of MS health states increased for both respondent groups. Respondents rated less-disabled health states relatively highly (>0.94 for patients and >0.89 for community respondents). Q uality-of-life measures for treatments in mean utilities ranged from 0.80 to 0.96. Patients assigned higher utilities for both MS health states and treatment states than community respondents; the ratings became more disparate as health states worsened. Conclusions: O n average, respondents assigned utilities to currently available treatments for MS that are comparable to those of mild to moderate stages of the disease itself. These results underscore the importance of including preferences for health states and treatment alternatives in the decision to initiate treatment for individual patients or in the evaluation of effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of these treatments in patients with MS.

Key Words: multiple sclerosis • patient preferences • quality of life • utility

Multiple Sclerosis, Vol. 9, No. 3, 311-319 (2003)
DOI: 10.1191/1352458503ms903oa


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. A. Prosser, J. A. Ladapo, D. Rusinak, and S. E. Waisbren Parental Tolerance of False-positive Newborn Screening Results Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, September 1, 2008; 162(9): 870 - 876. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Thompson, K. Noyes, E. R. Dorsey, S. R. Schwid, and R. G. Holloway Quantitative risk-benefit analysis of natalizumab Neurology, July 29, 2008; 71(5): 357 - 364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. A. Prosser and E. Wittenberg Do Risk Attitudes Differ across Domains and Respondent Types? Med Decis Making, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 281 - 287. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Heffernan and C. Jenkinson Review Paper: Measuring outcomes for neurological disorders: a review of disease-specific health status instruments for three degenerative neurological conditions Chronic Illness, June 1, 2005; 1(2): 131 - 142. [Abstract] [PDF]