Advertisement

Journal of Neurology

, Volume 243, Issue 6, pp 469–474 | Cite as

Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: The disability and impact profile (DIP)

  • Gustaaf J. Lankhorst
  • Frank Jelles
  • Rob C. F. Smits
  • Chris H. Polman
  • Dirk J. Kuik
  • Lilian E. M. A. Pfennings
  • Leo Cohen
  • Henk M. van der Ploeg
  • Pierre Ketelaer
  • Luc Vleugels
Original Communication

Abstract

Seventy-three Dutch and Flemish patients with definite multiple sclerosis (MS) were assessed by means of the Disability and Impact Profile (DIP), which is a 2 × 39 item, self-administered questionnaire with parallel questions aboutdisabilities and their importance for orimpact on the patient, resulting in a profile of weighted scores. It was designed as a tool for clinical assessment of quality of life (QoL) domains in MS patients. Group data showed more than 50% loss on weighted scores for “walk”, “clean home”, “work” and “worry about deterioration”. In individual patients a median of 7 (range 0–23) major disruptions of quality of life (MD-QoL: loss on weighted score more than 50%) was found. Prevalence of MD-QoL in more than 10% of the patients was found for as many as 31 disabilities and > 50% for 3 (“clean home”, “work” and “worry about deterioration”). Results in the MS group were compared with available data from 25 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 25 patients with a spinal cord lesion (SCI). Weighted scores of “read”, “memory” and “concentration” were significantly lower in the MS group than in the RA and SCI groups. Significantly lower weighted scores in both the MS and RA groups compared with the SCI group were found for “worry about deterioration”, “physical endurance”, “clean home”, “work”, “see” and “write”. In conclusion, major disruptions in many domains of QoL were found in MS patients. Weighted score profiles for MS were in accordance with clinical manifestations. Unlike Kurtzke's Extended Disability Status Scale, DIP assesses a wide range of potentially MS-affected human activities, and also takes into account the subjective perception of disabilities.

Key words

Multiple sclerosis Quality of life Disability and Impact Profile 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anonymous (1991) Recognising disability. Lancet 338:154–155Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennekom CAM van, Jelles F, Lankhorst GJ (1995) Rehabilitation Activities Profile: the ICIDH as a framework for a problem-oriented assessment method in rehabilitation medicine. Disabil Rehabil 17: 169–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guyatt GH, Eagle DJ, Sackett B, Willan A, Griffith L, McIlroy W, Patterson CJ, Turpie I (1993) Measuring quality of life in the frail elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 46: 1433–1444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haan R de, Aaronson N, Limburg M, Langton Hewer R, Crevel H van (1993) Measuring quality of life in stroke. Stroke 24: 320–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jiwa-Boerrigter H, Engelen HGM van, Lankhorst GJ (1990) Application of the ICIDH in rehabilitation medicine. Int Disabil Stud 12: 17–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kurtzke J (1981) A proposal for a uniform minimal record of disability in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 64 [Suppl 87]: 110–129Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurtzke J (1983) Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology 33: 1444–1452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laman H, Lankhorst GJ (1994) Subjective weighting of disability: an approach to quality of life assessment in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 16: 198–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lankhorst GJ (1989) Quality of life: an exploratory study. Int J Rehab Res 12: 201–203Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mellerup E, Fog T, Raun N, Colville P, Rham B de, Hannah B, Kurtzke J (1981) The socio-economic scale. Acta Neurol Scand 64 [Suppl 87]: 130–138Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Polman CH, Lankhorst GJ (1993) Assessment of quality of life in multiple sclerosis. In: Ketelaer P, Battaglia MA (eds) Rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. Proceedings of the 2nd European workshop, May 29–30 1992, Brussels (Belgium). A.I.S.M., Genova, pp 64–69Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, McDonald WI, Davis FA, Ebers GC, Johnson KP, Sibley WA, Silberberg DH, Tourtellotte WW (1983) New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 13: 227–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rudick RA, Miller D, Clough JD, Gragg LA, Farmer RG (1992) Quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 49:1237–1242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steinbrocker O, Traeger CH, Batterman RC (1949) Therapeutic criteria in rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA 140: 659–662Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stensman R (1985) Severely mobilitydisabled people assess the quality of their lives. Scand J Rehab Med 17: 87–99Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tugwell P, Bombardier C (1982) A methodologic framework for developing and selecting endpoints in clinical trials. J Rheumatol 9: 758–762PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization (1980) International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustaaf J. Lankhorst
    • 1
  • Frank Jelles
    • 1
  • Rob C. F. Smits
    • 2
  • Chris H. Polman
    • 2
  • Dirk J. Kuik
    • 3
  • Lilian E. M. A. Pfennings
    • 4
  • Leo Cohen
    • 4
  • Henk M. van der Ploeg
    • 4
  • Pierre Ketelaer
    • 5
  • Luc Vleugels
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Rehabilitation MedicineVrije UniversityMB AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyVrije UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics and EpidemiologyVrije UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Medical PsychologyVrije UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.National Multiple Sclerosis CenterMelsbroekBelgium

Personalised recommendations