data collection is used for the same resource items. Methods: Articles citing 38 trial-based resource use instruments catalogued in the MRC-funded Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurement (www.DIRUM.org) were identified using Google Scholar, ISI Web of Science and Scopus, and screened according to resource use measure usage. Data were extracted on: the method of administration, resources measured, rates of return and the nature of the other methods of resource use measurement. Results: A total of 146/1503 citations met the screening criteria. Nearly all (143/146) used resource use instruments derived from Beecham and Knapp's Client Service Receipt Inventory. Most instruments relied on patient-or proxy-recall (126/146) generally administered during researcher interviews. Primary and secondary care usage were the most widely asked items (136/146) with 75 using no supplementary supporting data such as from hospital notes. Twelve studies compared one or more method of data collection for the same resource items with 8 indicating good agreement between medical records and patient/carer recall, 1 indicating the greater reliability of case notes and 3 were not evaluable. ConClusions: Resource use instruments based on patient recall are valuable complements to other methods and essential for certain items (e.g. out of pocket costs, non-medical costs). However, there remains inappropriate use in circumstances where more objective measures are available.
teen of the most disabling conditions as reported by the Centers for Disease Control were also collected. Overall work and activity impairment estimates were calculated for both the full sample and each of the nineteen diagnoses. Results: In total, 50.7% of survey respondents were employed and provided information with respect to their work impairment; all respondents regardless of employment reported their activity impairment. These adults were an average 44.20 years old (SD= 13.52) and 52.6% were male. The mean level of absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment was 3.49%, 12.91%, 15.01%, and 22.08%, respectively (SDs= 13.88%, 21.98%, 24.96%, and 28.33%, respectively). The highest levels of overall work impairment were observed for patients with AIDS (42.7%), broken bones (36.6%), and hernia or rupture (32.8%) whereas the highest levels of activity impairment were observed for patients with a hernia or rupture (53.9%), kidney problems (48.5%), and back or spine problems (47.5%). ConClusions: These results help to provide some context for work and activity impairment by providing estimates for the overall population as well as for nineteen separate disease states/conditions. objeCtives: The asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) is a condition-specific measure which evaluates four domains of health-related quality of life (HRQL) important in asthmatic adults: activity limitation, symptoms, emotional function, and environmental exposure. The objectives of this study were to identify: 1) How many HRQL claims were obtained in the label of asthma products using the AQLQ; 2) HRQL measures used in trials but not mentioned in label; and 3) Reasons why to discard these measures. Methods: The PROLabels database was searched on 12/27/2014 using "asthma" as a key word for therapeutic indication. Results: Out of thirty-seven products approved for asthma (five by the EMA, and 32 by the FDA), twenty-five had PRO claims in their label. Five of them had a HRQL claim: Symbicort (budesonide/formoterol fumarate dehydrate -FDA), Advair HFA (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate -FDA), Advair Diskus (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate -FDA), Dulera (mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate -FDA) and Xolair (omalizumab -EMA). In all cases, the HRQL evaluation was performed using the AQLQ. Of the 20 products with PROs in label (but not HRQL), seven had no HRQL evaluation performed, three had no medical review available, and ten had a HRQL evaluation using the AQLQ (n= 8), and/or the SF-36 (n= 3) [one product used both measures]. The main reasons provided for not including HRQL data in the label were lack of statistical significance between treatment groups, or not reaching clinical significance. In one case (omalizumab), the FDA argued about the improper use of the AQLQ. ConClusions: This review has shown that all HRQL claims in asthma product labels were obtained using the AQLQ, a validated measure in asthma patients with a recognized minimally important difference enabling a clear i...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.