Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1813–1821 | Cite as

Understanding the relative importance of preserving functional abilities in Alzheimer’s disease in the United States and Germany

  • A. Brett Hauber
  • Ateesha F. Mohamed
  • F. Reed Johnson
  • Michael Cook
  • H. Michael Arrighi
  • Jing Zhang
  • Michael Grundman
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To estimate the relative importance that Alzheimer’s disease (AD) caregivers in the United States and Germany place on preserving patients’ ability to perform activities of daily living.

Methods

US and German residents providing care for a person with AD completed an online preference survey. Each respondent completed five best–worst scaling questions. Each question related to five of 10 activities from the Disability Assessment for Dementia scale. Preference weights, indicating the relative importance of preserving the ability to perform these 10 activities for 36 months, were estimated using maximum-difference scaling. A separate model was estimated for each country.

Results

Four hundred and three US and 400 German caregivers completed the survey. In both countries, preserving a patients’ ability to use the toilet without accidents was the most important activity and handling money was the least important activity. There were few differences between US and German caregivers in the relative importance across activities.

Conclusions

Caregivers generally placed greater importance on preserving basic activities of daily living than on preserving instrumental activities of daily living. Understanding differences in the relative importance of functional items in the DAD may contribute to a better understanding of the benefits of different AD treatment and support measures.

Keywords

Alzheimer’s disease Conjoint analysis Best–worst scaling Disability Assessment for Dementia Caregivers Preference 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the caregivers who chose to participate in either the pilot survey or the main survey of this study. The authors also would like to thank Dr. Paul Coplan, for assisting in the development of this survey. We also would like to thank Dr. Axel Muehlbacher, for his help with adapting the survey to Germany and conducting the German pretest interviews, and Harris Interactive, for programming the online survey, recruiting respondents, administering the online survey, and collecting the data. Finally, the authors would like to thank Angelyn Fairchild and Amy Pugh for assisting with data analysis and Gail Zona for editing the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc and Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC. A. F. Mohamed, A. B. Hauber, F. R. Johnson, and J. Zhang were employees of RTI Health Solutions at the time this study was conducted and were paid consultants to Pfizer and Janssen AI in connection with the development of this manuscript. Michael Grundman was a paid consultant to Janssen AI in the development of this manuscript. Editorial support was provided by Gail Zona at RTI Health Solutions and was funded by Pfizer Inc and Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.

References

  1. 1.
    Brookmeyer, R., Johnson, E., Ziegler-Graham, K., & Arrighi, H. M. (2007). Forecasting the global burden of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 3(3), 186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alzheimer’s Association. (2012). 2012 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 8(2), 1–72.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alzhiemer’s Disease International. World Alzheimer Report 2009. Prince, M., Sousa, R., Albanese, E., Ribeir, W. S., Honyashiki, M. (eds.). London: Alzhiemer’s Disease International.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alzheimer’s Europe. (2009). Prevalence of dementia in Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_information/dissemination/echi/docs/dementia2_en.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2013.
  5. 5.
    Burns, A. (2000). The burden of Alzheimer’s disease. The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 3, S31–S38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mohamed, S., Rosenheck, R., Lyketsos, C. G., & Schneider, L. S. (2010). Caregiver burden in Alzheimer disease: Cross-sectional and longitudinal patient correlates. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 8(10), 917–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vellas, B., Andrieu, S., Sampaio, C., Coley, N., & Wilcock, G. (2008). Endpoints for trials in Alzheimer’s disease: a European task force consensus. The Lancet Neurology, 7(5), 436–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arons, A. M. M., Krabbe, P. F. M., Scholzel-Dorenbos, C. J. M., van der Wilt, G. J., & Olde Rikkert, M. G. M. (2012). Thurstone scaling revealed systematic health-state valuation differences between patients with dementia and proxies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 897–905.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hauber, A. B., Johnson, F. R., Fillit, H., Mohamed, A. F., Leibman, C., Arrighi, H. M., et al. (2009). Older Americans’ risk-benefit preferences for modifying the course of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 23(1), 23–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karlawish, J., Cary, M. S., Rubright, J., & Tenhave, T. (2008). How redesigning AD clinical trials might increase study partners’ willingness to participate. Neurology, 71(23), 1883–1888.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Negrín, M. A., Pinilla, J., & León, C. J. (2008). Willingness to pay for alternative policies for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Health Economics, Policy, and Law, 3, 257–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    David, H. A. (1969). The method of paired comparisons. London: Charles Griffin and Company Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Louviere, J. J. (1993). Best–worst or maximum difference measurement model: applications to behavioral research in marketing. Presented at the Behavioral Research Conference. AZ: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flynn, T. N. (2010). Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: Recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes & Research, 10(3), 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J., Peters, T. J., & Coast, J. (2007). Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 171–189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gélinas, I., Gauthier, L., McIntyre, M., & Gauthier, S. (1999). Development of a functional measure for persons with Alzheimer’s disease: The disability assessment for dementia. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53(5), 471–481.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mohamed, A. F., Hauber, A. B., Johnson, F. R., & Coon, C. D. (2010). Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes. The Patient, 3(4), 217–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hauber, A. B., Mohamed, A. F., Johnson, F. R., Oyelowo, O., Curtis, B. H., & Coon, C. (2010). Estimating importance weights for the IWQOL-Lite using conjoint analysis. Quality of Life Research, 19(5), 701–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson, F. R., Hauber, A. B., Osoba, D., Hsu, M. A., Coombs, J., & Copley-Merriman, C. (2006). Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Quality Life Research, 15, 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osoba, D., Hsu, A., Copley-Merriman, C., Coombs, J., Johnson, F. R., Hauber, B., et al. (2006). Stated preferences of patients with cancer for health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) domains during treatment. Quality Life Research, 15, 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feldman, H. F., Baelen, B. V., Kavanagh, S. M., & Torfs, K. E. L. (2005). Cognition, function, and caregiving time patterns in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease: A 12-month analysis. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 19, 29–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arrighi, H. M., Gelinas, I., McLaughlin, T. P., Buchanan, J., & Gauthier, S. (2013). Longitudinal changes in functional ability in Alzheimer’s disease patients. International Psychogeriatrics, 25, 927–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feldman, H., Sauter, A., Donald, A., Gelinas, I., Gauther, S., Torfs, K., et al. (2001). The Disability Assessment for Dementia scale: A 12-month study of functional ability in mild to moderate severity Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 15, 89–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Brett Hauber
    • 1
  • Ateesha F. Mohamed
    • 1
  • F. Reed Johnson
    • 1
  • Michael Cook
    • 2
  • H. Michael Arrighi
    • 3
  • Jing Zhang
    • 1
  • Michael Grundman
    • 3
  1. 1.RTI Health SolutionsResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.Pfizer, Inc.CollegevilleUSA
  3. 3.Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & DevelopmentSouth San FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations