Does the relative importance of the OxCAP-MH's capability items differ according to mental ill-health experience?

BACKGROUND: Some capability dimensions may be more important than others in determining someone's well-being, and these preferences might be dependent on ill-health experience. This study aimed to explore the relative preference weights of the 16 items of the German language version of the OxCAP-MH (Oxford Capability questionnaire-Mental Health) capability instrument and their differences across cohorts with alternative levels of mental ill-health experience. METHODS: A Best-Worst-Scaling (BWS) survey was conducted in Austria among 1) psychiatric patients (direct mental ill-health experience), 2) (mental) healthcare experts (indirect mental ill-health experience), and 3) primary care patients with no mental ill-health experience. Relative importance scores for each item of the German OxCAP-MH instrument were calculated using Hierarchical Bayes estimation. Rank analysis and multivariable linear regression analysis with robust standard errors were used to explore the relative importance of the OxCAP-MH items across the three cohorts. RESULTS: The study included 158 participants with complete cases and acceptable fit statistic. The relative importance scores for the full cohort ranged from 0.76 to 15.72. Findings of the BWS experiment indicated that the items Self-determination and Limitation in daily activities were regarded as the most important for all three cohorts. Freedom of expression was rated significantly less important by psychiatric patients than by the other two cohorts, while Having suitable accommodation appeared significantly less important by the expert cohort. There were no further significant differences in the relative preference weights of OxCAP-MH items between the cohorts or according to gender. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates significant between-item but limited mental ill-health related heterogeneity in the relative preference weights of the different capability items within the OxCAP-MH. The findings support the future development of preference-based value sets elicited from the general population for comparative economic evaluation purposes.

The use of tumour necrosis factor alpha-blockers in daily routine. An Austrian consensus project.

To define relevant disease parameters and their respective limits indicating the initiation of TNF-alpha-blockers in individual patients. Subsequently, to analyze retrospectively patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS), who started TNF-alpha inhibition in 2006. Points to consider, regarded relevant for individual treatment decisions as well as their assessment methods, were ascertained by experts' consensus applying the Delphi technique. Subsequently, these parameters' thresholds with respect to the initiation of a TNF-alpha-blocker were identified. Thereafter, the rheumatologists representing 12 centres all over Austria agreed to retrospectively analyze their patients started on a TNF-alpha-blocker in 2006. Experts' opinion regarding disease parameters relevant to initiate TNF-alpha-blockers in RA patients only slightly differed from those applied in clinical trials, but the parameters' threshold values were considerably lower. For PsA patients, some differences and for AS patients, considerable differences between experts' opinion and clinical studies appeared, which held also true for decisive parameters' means and thresholds. Six hundred and fifty patients, started on TNF-blockers in 2006, could be analyzed retrospectively, 408 RA patients (53.3 years mean, 340 females), 93 PsA patients (48.9 years mean, 59 males) and 149 AS patients AS (42.2 years mean, 108 males), representing approximately 25% of all Austrian patients initiated on a TNF-blocker in this respective year. Far more individualized, patient-oriented treatment approaches, at least in part, are applied in daily routine compared with those derived from clinical trials or recommendations from investigative rheumatologists.

The public neglect of rheumatic diseases: insights from analyses of attendees in a musculoskeletal disease awareness activity.

OBJECTIVES: To obtain data on the care received by individuals counselled during a public health awareness campaign on painful musculoskeletal conditions (MSC). METHODS: Easy non-formal access to rheumatologists/pain specialists was offered using a mobile unit (Rheuma-Bus) at widely accessible sites. Clients were asked to assess their severity of pain using a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Age, gender, disease duration, diagnosis if known, current and previous treatment as well as tentative diagnoses assigned and recommendations given to each individual by the counselling physicians were recorded. RESULTS: Average (SD) VAS pain rating was 59 (20.6) mm. Approximately 40% of clients had never consulted a physician for their condition before, but had lower pain scores than those who had seen a physician. Patients with inflammatory MSC had higher pain scores than those with non-inflammatory conditions. More than 2% of the clients had a newly detected inflammatory rheumatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Many individuals having painful MSC seek medical help only when a very high threshold of pain is reached. Even while under treatment, the high mean pain scores suggest neglect of MSC that are not adequately recognised as important contributors to disability and decreased quality of life.

[Adverse effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A prevalence study in Austria]. / Unerwünschte Wirkungen unter nichtsteroidalen Antiphlogistika. Eine Prävalenzstudie aus Osterreich.

OBJECTIVE: Gastrointestinal side effects are the limiting factor in the prescription of non-steroidal antirheumatic drugs (NSAID). However, there are no recent data from Austria. The aim of this prevalence study was therefore to assess the gastrointestinal risk from NSAID in Austria. METHODS: A total of 1347 patients were observed in an outpatient setting between March 2000 and February 2001. Side effects from NSAID were documented by questionnaire at two time points with a mean interval of 31 days. Documented data were analysed descriptively using an explorative strategy. The prevalence of side effects was compared to data from literature. RESULTS: Side effects were reported by 18.1% of the patients, severe gastro-intestinal complications (ulcer, bleeding, perforation) were diagnosed in 0.7%. Prescription of effective GI-protection (proton pump inhibitors, misoprostole, famotidin in high dose) was seen in only one third of the patients at risk. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of severe gastrointestinal side effects by NSAIDs assessed in our study was clearly lower than the prevalence reported in the Anglo-American literature. This may be due to a different prescription behaviour: about 75% of the patients took Diclofenac, lbuprofen or Meloxicam, drugs which have a very low potential of gastrointestinal complications. However, more information for general practitioners is needed yet to sufficiently protect patients at gastrointestinal risk from NSAID.