| Title |
Evaluating health-related quality of life in type 1 diabetes: a systematic literature review of utilities for adults with type 1 diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s114699 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jayne Smith-Palmer, Jay P Bae, Kristina S Boye, Kirsi Norrbacka, Barnaby Hunt, William J Valentine |
| Abstract |
Type 1 diabetes is a chronic condition associated with micro- and macrovascular complications that have a notable impact on health-related quality of life, the magnitude of which can be quantified via the use of utility values. The aim of this review was to conduct a systematic literature review to identify and compare published health state utility values for adults with type 1 diabetes both, with and without diabetes-related complications. Literature searches of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were performed to identify English language studies on adults with type 1 diabetes, published from 2000 onward, reporting utility values for patients with or without diabetes-related complications or assessing the impact of changes in HbA1c or body mass index on quality of life. For inclusion, studies were required to report utilities elicited using validated methods. A total of 20 studies were included in the final review that included utility values elicited using the EuroQuol five dimensions questionnaire (n=9), 15D questionnaire (n=2), Quality of Well-Being scale (n=4), time trade-off (n=3), and standard gamble (n=2) methods. For patients with no complications, reported utility values ranged from 0.90 to 0.98. Complications including stroke (reported disutility range, -0.105 to -0.291), neuropathy (range, -0.055 to -0.358), and blindness (range, -0.132 to -0.208) were associated with the largest decrements in utility values. The magnitude of utility values and utility decrements was influenced by the assessment method used. Complications lead to impaired health-related quality of life in patients with type 1 diabetes, the magnitude of which is influenced by the method used to determine utilities. There is currently a lack of utility data for certain complications of type 1 diabetes, meaning that many economic evaluations have relied on a combination of type 1 and type 2 diabetes utilities, despite differences between the conditions and populations, or type 1 diabetes-specific utilities derived from different instruments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 17% |
| Psychology | 9 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 22% |
| Unknown | 26 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2021.
All research outputs
#6,443,731
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#127
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,523
of 333,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#7
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.