[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Congenital haemophilia is an inherited bleeding disorder typically diagnosed at birth or shortly thereafter. Haemophilia imposes a significant burden on patients and their caregivers. The aim of the study was to quantify the overall burden of haemophilia on caregivers in the USA using a novel disease-specific questionnaire and the previously validated CarerQol. Targeted literature review and a previous survey conducted by the authors was used to develop an online questionnaire with six burden domains of interest to caregivers (emotional stress, financial, sacrifice, medical management, child's pain and transportation) and several visual analogue scales (VAS). Content validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by three haemophilia caregivers. The study sample consisted of caregivers of children with haemophilia identified via a previously developed opt-in research database. Descriptive statistics were employed for demographic and clinical characteristics; a generalized linear model (GLM) was used to identify factors influencing caregiver burden. A total of 310 caregivers completed the survey (45.5% response rate). Most of the participating caregivers were mothers of a child with haemophilia (88%), between 35 and 44 years of age (48%), and with a college education or a postgraduate degree (63%). 'Child's pain' was identified as the most burdensome domain to caregivers (median score = 3.50 out of 5), followed by 'emotional stress' (2.67), 'financial' (2.40), 'transportation' (2.33), 'sacrifice' (2.17) and 'medical management' (2.00) domains. Although higher income exhibited a protective effect, episodes of bleeds, current presence of an inhibitor and lower caregiver productivity in the past month negatively affected caregiver burden per GLM results. Training and educational programs should potentially be developed to address caregiver burden.
Value in Health 05/2013; 16(3):A76. · 2.19 Impact Factor
Value in Health 05/2013; 16(3):A115. · 2.19 Impact Factor
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Congenital hemophilia patients with inhibitors are at greater risk for developing arthropathy and orthopedic complications compared to those without inhibitors. Elective orthopedic surgeries (EOS) may be an option for these patients and may provide long-term cost savings due to reduced bleed frequency. However, patient motivations and goals for undergoing or delaying such surgeries are not well understood. A US-based patient/caregiver survey was designed to describe inhibitor patient experiences and outcomes following EOS and to develop a comprehensive understanding of patient preferences for EOS, which are lacking in the literature.
The paper-pencil questionnaire was mailed to 261 US inhibitor patients/caregivers and included history and timing of EOS, quality-of-life (QoL) and potential benefits of and barriers to receiving EOS. Univariate/bivariate descriptive analyses were performed to characterize those with/without a history of EOS.
For 103 subjects who responded, the mean age was 20.9 years. Approximately 25% (n = 26) of respondents underwent EOS, most commonly on the knee (21, 81%); 73.1% of surgery recipients reported the surgery improved or greatly improved their QoL based on single-item response. The highest ranked perceived benefits were less pain, fewer bleeds, and improved mobility. However, the leading concerns reported were lack of improved mobility (62.2%), fear of uncontrolled bleeding (61.3%), and surgical complications, such as blood clot (60.0%).
The study consisted of a small sample size, primarily due to the difficulty in trying to reach inhibitor patients or their caregivers, thereby restricting inferential and stratification analysis.
QoL improved for most inhibitor patients who reported having EOS. For those considering surgery, there is optimism about the potential benefits, but realistic concerns associated with bleed control and post-op complications.
Journal of Medical Economics 12/2011; 15(2):305-12.
Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 01/2011; 26(3):279-279.
Value in Health 01/2011; 14(7). · 2.19 Impact Factor
Value in Health 01/2011; 14(3). · 2.19 Impact Factor