Advertisement

Journal of Neurology

, Volume 265, Issue 11, pp 2713–2722 | Cite as

Quality of life in a German cohort of Parkinson’s patients assessed with three different measures

  • M. Balzer-Geldsetzer
  • J. Klotsche
  • LANDSCAPE Consortium
  • R. Dodel
  • O. Riedel
Original Communication
  • 142 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is characterized by severe motor and non-motor symptoms reducing patients’ quality of life (QoL). Instruments have been well established for QoL assessments in PD, including the EuroQol (EQ-5D), the Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39), or rather uncommon, like the WHOQOL-100. So far, the impact of variables has been investigated for each of these measures separately in different study populations, limiting the comparability of the results. Thus, this study compared the EQ-5D, PDQ-39, and the WHOQOL-100 (with its short-form WHOQOL-BREF) in the same study population.

Methods

Seventy-five PD outpatients were assessed in a prospective study, including disease severity according to Hoehn and Yahr stage (HY) and Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) screened for depression.

Results

Decreased QoL was found with all three instruments. In multivariate models, sex and treatment complications had an impact on QoL according to all three measures, while duration of PD and HY was not associated with QoL in any of them. Depression was relevant for the WHOQOL-100/WHOQOL-BREF and the PDQ-39, but not for the EQ-5D. The total variances explained by the WHOQOL-100, WHOQOL-BREF, PDQ-39, and the EQ-5D were 0.27, 0.34, 0.70, and 0.50, respectively.

Conclusions

The associations between clinical aspects of PD and QoL vary substantially among all three measures. Importantly, depression as a frequent comorbidity in PD is underestimated by the EQ-5D, but not by the PDQ-39 and the WHOQOL-100/WHOQOL-BREF. In turn, motor impairments are underestimated by the latter and associated strongest with QoL in the EQ-5D.

Keywords

Quality of life Parkinson’s disease Cohort study WHOQOL-100 DEMPARK/LANDSCAPE study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Data were generated within the LANDSCAPE study (Representatives of the participating centers are: K. Reetz, Department of Neurology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen; JARA—Translational Brain Medicine, Jülich and Aachen; A. Spottke, Department of Neurology, University of Bonn, and German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Bonn; Department of Psychiatry, University of Bonn, Bonn, and German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, DZNE, Bonn; (A) Storch, Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Rostock; S. Baudrexel, Department of Neurology, Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main; (B) Mollenhauer, Paracelsus-Elena-Klinik, Kassel; Institute of Neuropathology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen; D. Berg, Department of Neurology, UKSH Campus Kiel, Kiel; I. Liepelt, Department of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tuebingen, and German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Tuebingen; J. Kassubek, Department of Neurology, University of Ulm; E. Kalbe, Department of Medical Psychology, University Clinic Cologne; H.U. Wittchen, Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universitaet Dresden, Dresden). The LANDSCAPE study is part of the Competence Network Degenerative Dementias (KNDD) which was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (project number 01GI1008C).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests.

Ethical standards

The DEMPARK/LANDSCAPE study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Philipps University of Marburg (approval numbers 178/07 and 25/11) and, subsequently, by the local ethics committees of the participating centers. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants before study entry.

Supplementary material

415_2018_9047_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 24 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    De Rijk M, Tzourio C, Breteler M et al (1997) Prevalence of parkinsonism and Parkinson’s disease in Europe: the EUROPARKINSON collaborative study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 62:10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bach J-P, Riedel O, Klotsche J, Spottke A, Dodel R, Wittchen H-U (2012) Impact of complications and comorbidities on treatment costs and health-related quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Sci 314:41–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reuter I, Ebersbach G (2012) Efficacy of exercise in Parkinson’s Disease. Akt Neurol 39:236–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The WHOQOL Group (1998) The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 46:1569–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martinez-Martin P, Jeukens-Visser M, Lyons KE et al (2011) Health-related quality-of-life scales in Parkinson’s disease: critique and recommendations. Mov Disord 26:2371–2380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen FP, Chang CM, Shiu JH et al (2015) A clinical study of integrating acupuncture and western medicine in treating patients with Parkinson’s Disease. Am J Chin Med 43:407–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hendred SK, Foster ER (2016) Use of the World Health Organization quality of life assessment short version in mild to moderate Parkinson Disease. Arch Phys Med Rehab 97:2123–2129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirayamau MS, Gobbi S, Gobbi LTB, Stella F (2008) Quality of life (QoL) in relation to disease severity in Brazilian Parkinson’s patients as measured using the WHOQOL-BREF. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 46:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schestatsky P, Zanatto VC, Margis R et al (2006) Quality of life in a Brazilian sample of patients with Parkinson’s disease and their caregivers. Rev Bras Psiquiatr 28:209–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Valeikiene V, Ceremnych J, Alekna V, Jumulynasam A (2008) Differences in WHOQOL-100 domain scores in Parkinson’s disease and osteoarthritis. Med Sci Mon 14:CR221–CR227Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hughes A, Daniel S, Kilford L, Lees A (1992) Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: a clinicopathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 55:181–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balzer-Geldsetzer M, Braga da Costa AS, Kronenbürger M (2011) Parkinson’s disease and dementia: a longitudinal study (DEMPARK). Neuroepidemiol 37:168–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoehn M, Yahr M (1967) Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurol 17:427–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fahn S (1987) Unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale. In: Fahn S, Calne D (eds) Recent developments in Parkinson’s Disease. MacMillan Healthcare Information, Florham Park, pp 153–163Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh P (1975) Mini-Mental state: a practical method for grading the mental state of patients by the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kalbe E, Calabrese P, Kohn N et al (2008) Screening for cognitive deficits in Parkinson’s disease with the Parkinson neuropsychometric dementia assessment (PANDA) instrument. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 14:93–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petersen RC (2004) Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity. J Int Med 256:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Emre M, Aarsland D, Brown R et al (2007) Clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia associated with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 22:1689–1707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yesavage J, Brink T, Rose T et al (1983) Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res 17:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schrag A, Barone P, Brown R et al (2007) Depression rating scales in Parkinson’s disease: critique and recommendations. Movement Disord 22:1077–1092CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brooks R (1996) Euroqol—the current state of play. Health Pol (Amst) 37:53–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, Greenhall R, Hyman N (1997) The Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39): development and validation of a Parkinson’s disease summary index score. Age Ageing 26:353–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach J, von der Schulenburg J (2005) Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 6:123–130Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Greenhall R (1995) The development and validation of a short measure of functioning and well-being for individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res 4:241–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Angermeyer MC, Kilian R, Matschinger (2000) WHOQOL-100 und WHQOL-BREF. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Masthoff ED, Trompenaars FJ, Van Heck GL, Hodiamont PP, De Vries J (2005) Validation of the WHO quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL-100) in a population of Dutch adult psychiatric outpatients. Eur Psychiatr 20:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klotsche J, Minden K, Thon A, Ganser G, Urban A, Horneff G (2014) Improvement in health-related quality of life for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis after start of treatment with etanercept. Arthr Care Res 66:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alonso J, Ferrer M, Gandek B et al (2004) Health-related quality of life associated with chronic conditions in eight countries: results from the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. Qual Life Res 13:283–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    da Rocha NS, Fleck MP (2019) Evaluation of quality of life in adults with chronic health conditions: the role of depressive symptoms. Rev Brasil Psiquiatr 32:119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Uem JMT, Marinus J, Canning C et al (2016) Health-related quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease a systematic review based on the ICF model. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 61:26–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lucas-Carrasco R, Pascual-Sedano B, Galan I, Kulisevsky J, Sastre-Garriga J, Gomez-Benito J (2011) Using the WHOQOL-DIS to measure quality of life in persons with physical disabilities caused by neurodegenerative disorders. Neurodegen Dis 8:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    König H, Bernert S, Angermeyer M (2005) Health status of the German population: results of a representative survey using the EuroQol questionnaire. Gesundheitswesen 67:173–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schrag A, Jahanshahi M, Quinn N (2000) How does Parkinson’s disease affect quality of life? A comparison with quality of life in the general population. Mov Disord 15:1112–1118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abboud H, Genc G, Thompson NR et al (2017) Predictors of functional and quality of life outcomes following deep brain stimulation surgery in Parkinson’s disease patients: DISEASE, patient, and surgical Factors. Parkinsons Dis 2017:5609163.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5609163 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bettecken K, Bernhard F, Sartor J et al (2017) No relevant association of kinematic gait parameters with health-related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Plos One 12:e0176816CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lindgren HIV, Qvarfordt P, Bergman S, Gottsater A, Swedish Endovasc Claudication S (2018) Primary stenting of the superficial femoral Artery in patients with intermittent claudication has durable effects on health-related quality of life at 24 months: results of a randomized controlled trial. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 41:872–881CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Den Oudsten BL, Van Heck GL, De Vries J (2007) The suitability of patient-based measures in the field of Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. Mov Disord 22:1390–1401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geriatric Centre Haus Berge, Contilia GmbHUniversity Hospital EssenEssenGermany
  2. 2.Deutsches Rheumaforschungszentrum-ein Leibniz InstitutBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyPhillips University MarburgMarburgGermany
  4. 4.Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPSBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations