Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: The disability and impact profile (DIP)
- 142 Downloads
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 wordsMultiple sclerosis Quality of life Disability and Impact Profile
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Anonymous (1991) Recognising disability. Lancet 338:154–155Google Scholar
- 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
- 9.Lankhorst GJ (1989) Quality of life: an exploratory study. Int J Rehab Res 12: 201–203Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 14.Steinbrocker O, Traeger CH, Batterman RC (1949) Therapeutic criteria in rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA 140: 659–662Google Scholar
- 15.Stensman R (1985) Severely mobilitydisabled people assess the quality of their lives. Scand J Rehab Med 17: 87–99Google Scholar
- 17.World Health Organization (1980) International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar