Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:52:11.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health Status and Health Care Utilization of Multiple Sclerosis in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Sheri L. Pohar ,
C. Allyson Jones ,
Sharon Warren ,
Karen V.L. Turpin  and
Kenneth Warren
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

Persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) represent a small segment of the population, but given the progression of the disease, they experience substantial physical, psychosocial and economic burdens.

Objective:

The primary aim was to compare demographic characteristics, health status, health behaviours, health care resource utilization and access to health care of the community dwelling populations with and without MS.

Methods:

Cross-sectional survey using data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS 1.1). Adjusted analyses were performed to assess differences between persons with MS and the general population, after controlling for age and sex. Normalized sampling weights and bootstrap variance estimates were used.

Results:

Respondents with MS were 7.6 times (95% CI: 5.4, 10.7) more likely to have health-related quality of life scores that reflected severe impairment than respondents without MS. Respondents with MS were 12.2 times (95% CI: 8.6, 17.2) to rate their health as ‘poor’ or ‘fair’ than the general population. Urinary incontinence and chronic fatigue syndrome were 18.7 times (95% CI: 12.5, 28.2) and 21.9 times (95% CI: 11.9, 40.3), more likely to be reported by respondents with MS than those without. Differences between the two populations also existed in terms of health care resource utilization and access and health behaviours.

Conclusion:

Large discrepancies in health status and health care utilization existed between persons with MS who reside in the community and the general population according to all indicators used. Health care needs of persons with MS were also not met.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ:Contexte:

Les individus atteints de sclérose en plaques (SEP) ne constituent qu’une petite partie de la population, mais ils portent un lourd fardeau physique, psychosocial et économique à cause de la progression de la maladie.

Objectif:

Le but premier de cette étude était de comparer les caractéristiques démographiques, l’état de santé, les comportements de santé, l’utilisation des ressources de soins de santé et l’accès aux soins de santé des individus vivant dans la collectivité, atteints ou non de la SEP.

Méthodes:

Il s’agit d’une étude transversale des données de l’Enquête sur la santé dans les collectivités canadiennes (ESCC 1.1). Nous avons analysé les données pour évaluer les différences entre les individus atteints de SEP et la population en général, après ajustement pour l’âge et le sexe. Un échantillonnage normalisé pondéré et l‘estimation de variance bootstrap ont été utilisés.

Résultats:

Les répondants atteints de SEP étaient 7,6 fois (IC de 95% : 5,4 à 10,7) plus susceptibles d’avoir des scores de qualité de vie reliée à la santé qui témoignaient d’une atteinte sévère que les répondants sans SEP. Les répondants atteints de SEP étaient 12,2 fois (IC de 95% : 8,6 à 17,2) plus susceptibles de décrire leur santé comme étant « mauvaise » ou « passable » que la population en général. Ils étaient 18,7 fois (IC de 95% : 12,5 à 28,2) plus susceptibles de rapporter de l’incontinence urinaire et 21,9 fois (IC de 95% : 11,9 à 40,3) plus susceptibles de rapporter un syndrome de fatigue chronique que ceux qui n’en étaient pas atteints. Il y avait également des différences entre les deux populations en termes d’utilisation et d’accès aux ressources de soins de santé et en termes de comportements de santé.

Conclusion:

Selon tous les indicateurs utilisés, il existe de grandes discordances entre les individus atteints de SEP qui vivent dans la collectivité et la population en général quant à l’état de santé et à l’utilisation des soins de santé. En outre, les besoins de santé des individus atteints de SEP n’étaient pas satisfaits.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , May 2007 , pp. 167 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2007

References

1. Pryse-Phillips, WE. The incidence and prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Newfoundland and Labrador, 1960-1984. Ann Neurol. 1986; 20(3): 323-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Beck, CA, Metz, LM, Svenson, LW, Patten, SB. Regional variation of multiple sclerosis prevalence in Canada. Mult Scler. 2005; 11(5):516-19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Rosati, G. The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the world: an update. Neurol Sci. 2001; 22(2): 117-39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Warren, S, Warren, KG. multiple Sclerosis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.Google Scholar
5. Lobentanz, IS, Asenbaum, S, Vass, K, Sauter, C, Klosch, G, Kollegger, H, et al. Factors influencing quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients: disability, depressive mood, fatigue and sleep quality. Acta Neurol Scand. 2004; 110(1):6-13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Lublin, FD, Reingold, SC. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. Neurology. 1996; 46(4):907-11.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Pompeii, LA, Moon, SD, McCrory, DC. Measures of physical and cognitive function and work status among individuals with multiple sclerosis: a review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil. 2005; 15(1):69-84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Patwardhan, MB, Matchar, DB, Samsa, GP, McCrory, DC, Williams, RG, Li, TT. Cost of multiple sclerosis by level of disability: a review of literature. Mult Scler. 2005; 11(2):232-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Burden of illness of multiple sclerosis: Part I: Cost of illness. The Canadian Burden of Illness Study Group. Can J Neurol Sci. 1998; 25(1):23-30.Google Scholar
10. Pittock, SJ, Mayr, WT, McClelland, RL, Jorgensen, NW, Weigand, SD, Noseworthy, JH, et al. Quality of life is favorable for most patients with multiple sclerosis: a population-based cohort study. Arch Neurol. 2004; 61(5):679-86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Nortvedt, MW, Riise, T, Myhr, KM, Nyland, HI. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: measuring the disease effects more broadly. Neurology. 1999; 53(5):1098-103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Verbrugge, LM, Patrick, DL. Seven chronic conditions: their impact on US adults’ activity levels and use of medical services. Am J Public Health. 1995; 85(2): 173-82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Hardiman, O, Corr, B, Frost, E, Gibbons, P, Mahon, L, Traynor, BJ. Access to health services in Ireland for people with Multiple Sclerosis and Motor Neurone Disease. Ir Med J. 2003; 96(7):200-3.Google ScholarPubMed
14. Stolp-Smith, KA, Atkinson, EJ, Campion, ME, O’Brien, PC, Rodriguez, M. Health care utilization in multiple sclerosis: a population-based study in Olmsted County, MN. Neurology. 1998; 50(6): 1594-600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Beland, Y. Canadian community health survey—methodological overview. Health Rep. 2002; 13(3):9-14.Google ScholarPubMed
16. Statistics, Canada. CCHS Cycle 1.1, Public Use Microdata File Documentation; 2004.Google Scholar
17. Evans, RG, Stoddart, GL. Producing health, consuming health care. Soc Sci Med. 1990; 31(12):1347-63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Feeny, D, Furlong, W, Torrance, GW, Goldsmith, CH, Zhu, Z, Depauw, S, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002; 40(2):113-28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Horsman, J, Furlong, W, Feeny, D, Torrance, G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI(R)): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003; 1(1):54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Health Utilities Inc. [Cited 2004 Aug 20]. Available from http://www.healthutilities.comGoogle Scholar
21. Patten, SB, Brandon-Christie, J, Devji, J, Sedmak, B. Performance of the composite international diagnostic interview short form for major depression in a community sample. Chronic Dis Can. 2000; 21(2):68-72.Google Scholar
22. Wittchen, HU. Reliability and validity studies of the WHO—Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI): a critical review. J Psychiatr Res. 1994; 28(1):57-84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Shields, M, Tremblay, S. The health of Canada’s communities. Health Rep. 2002; 13 Suppl:1–23.Google Scholar
24. Campbell Survey on Well-Being in Canada. [Cited 2005 Aug 10]. Available from: http://cflri.ca/cflri/pa/surveys/88survey.htmlGoogle Scholar
25. Maddigan, SL, Feeny, DH, Johnson, JA. Health-related quality of life deficits associated with diabetes and comorbidities in a Canadian National Population Health Survey. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14(5):1311-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Maddigan, S, Feeny, D, Majumdar, S, Farris, K, Johnson, J. Construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in type 2 diabetes: evidence from a nationally representative sample of Canadians. Institute of Health Economics Working Paper. WP 05-02; 2005.Google Scholar
27. Simpson, SH, Corabian, P, Jacobs, P, Johnson, JA. The cost of major comorbidity in people with diabetes mellitus. CMAJ. 2003; 168(13):1661-7.Google ScholarPubMed
28. Sprenkle, MD, Niewoehner, DE, Nelson, DB, Nichol, KL. The Veterans Short Form 36 questionnaire is predictive of mortality and health-care utilization in a population of veterans with a selfreported diagnosis of asthma or COPD. Chest. 2004; 126(1):81-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Cramer, JA, Blum, D, Fanning, K, Reed, M. The impact of comorbid depression on health resource utilization in a community sample of people with epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2004; 5(3):337-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Dalton, EJ, Heinrichs, RW. Depression in multiple sclerosis: a quantitative review of the evidence. Neuropsychology. 2005; 19(2): 152-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Wollin, J, Bennie, M, Leech, C, Windsor, C, Spencer, N. Multiple sclerosis and continence issues: an exploratory study. Br J Nurs. 2005; 14(8):439-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Svendsen, KB, Jensen, TS, Overvad, K, Hansen, HJ, Koch-Henriksen, N, Bach, FW. Pain in patients with multiple sclerosis: a population-based study. Arch Neurol. 2003; 60(8):1089-94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Kalia, LV, O’Connor, PW. Severity of chronic pain and its relationship to quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2005; 11(3):322-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Solaro, C, Brichetto, G, Amato, MP, Cocco, E, Colombo, B, D’Aleo, G, et al. The prevalence of pain in multiple sclerosis: a multicenter cross-sectional study. Neurology. 2004; 63(5):919-21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Rae-Grant, AD, Eckert, NJ, Bartz, S, Reed, JF. Sensory symptoms of multiple sclerosis: a hidden reservoir of morbidity. Mult Scler. 1999; 5(3):179-83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Pearson, SD, Katzelnick, DJ, Simon, GE, Manning, WG, Helstad, CP, Henk, HJ. Depression among high utilizers of medical care. J Gen Intern Med. 1999; 14(8):461-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Luo, X, Pietrobon, R, Sun, SX, Liu, GG, Hey, L. Estimates and patterns of direct health care expenditures among individuals with back pain in the United States. Spine. 2004; 29(1):79-86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Amato, MP, Ponziani, G, Rossi, F, Liedl, CL, Stefanile, C, Rossi, L. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: the impact of depression, fatigue and disability. Mult Scler. 2001; 7(5):340-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Koch, LC, Rumrill, PD Jr., Roessler, RT, Fitzgerald, S. Illness and demographic correlates of quality of life among people with multiple sclerosis. Rehabil Psychol. 2001; 46(2):154-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Aronson, KJ. Quality of life among persons with multiple sclerosis and their caregivers. Neurology. 1997; 48(1):74-80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Schultz, SE, Kopec, JA. Impact of chronic conditions. Health Rep. 2003; 14(4):41-53.Google ScholarPubMed
42. Motl, RW, McAuley, E, Snook, EM. Physical activity and multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis. Mult Scler. 2005; 11(4):459-63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Spertus, JA, Jones, P, McDonell, M, Fan, V, Fihn, SD. Health status predicts long-term outcome in outpatients with coronary disease. Circulation. 2002; 106(1):43-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Walter-Ginzburg, A, Chetrit, A, Medina, C, Blumstein, T, Gindin, J, Modan, B. Physician visits, emergency room utilization, and overnight hospitalization in the old-old in Israel: the crossectional and longitudinal aging study (CALAS). J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001; 49(5):549-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Fan, VS, Curtis, JR, Tu, SP, McDonell, MB, Fihn, SD. Using quality of life to predict hospitalization and mortality in patients with obstructive lung diseases. Chest. 2002; 122(2):429-36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Brown, EM, Goel, V. Factors related to emergency department use: results from the Ontario Health Survey 1990. Ann Emerg Med. 1994; 24(6):1083-91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Ethgen, O, Kahler, KH, Kong, SX, Reginster, JY, Wolfe, F. The effect of health related quality of life on reported use of health care resources in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a longitudinal analysis. J Rheumatol. 2002; 29(6):1147-55.Google ScholarPubMed
48. Sanmartin, C, Houle, C, Tremblay, S, Berthelot, JM. Changes in unmet health care needs. Health Rep. 2002; 13(3):15-21.Google ScholarPubMed
49. Maddigan, SL, Feeny, DH, Majumdar, SR, Farris, KB, Johnson, JA. Understanding the determinants of health for people with type 2 diabetes. Am J Public Health. 2006; 96(9): 1649-55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50. Alonso, J, Orfila, F, Ruigomez, A, Ferrer, M, Anto, JM. Unmet health care needs and mortality among Spanish elderly. Am J Public Health. 1997; 87(3):365-70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed