-

Abstract

Objectives: To reveal the quality of life of hospitalized patients with problems of the locomotor system who have received physical therapy, and provide a cost analysis. Patients and Method: Demographic data were recorded for patients who received physical therapy. Health­related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed by 15­dimensional standardized instrument (15D). The cost was calculated. An economic analysis was made to consider data from HRQoL and quality adjusted life year (QALY) scales.Result: Of ninety three patients, 75 were female (80.64%), 18 were male (19.35%) and the average age was 61.45±14.52. The quality of life was low for the patients with gonarthrosis, hemiplegia, lumbar disc herniation, Guillain­ Barré syndrome, subacromial impingement syndrome, lumbar spondylosis, cervical disc herniation when compared with the patients with other locomotor system problems treated by physical therapy (F=5.89; p<0.05).The expenses for the treatment of selected diagnosis patients such as gonarthrosis, hemiplegia, lumbar disc herniation significantly increased the quality of life of these patients (F=34.12; p<0.05). Conclusion: Lumbar disc herniation, gonarthrosis and lumbar spondylosis are the diseases, that reduced the quality of life the most. The costs incurred for the treatment of these diseases, significantly increased the quality of life of these patients.There was no statistically significant difference neither in the quality of life of other patients that had hemiplegia, Guillain­Barré syndrome, subacromial impingement syndrome, cervical disc herniation, nor in the expenses for the treatment of these patients

Keywords

• Physiotherapy, Cost analysis, Quality of life

Yatarak fizyoterapi alan hastaların yaşam kaliteleri ve maliyet analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Lokomotor sistem sorunları nedeniyle yatarak fizyoterapi alan hastaların yaşam kaliteleri ve maliyet analizlerini ortaya koymaktır. Hastalar ve Yöntem: Yatarak fizyoterapi alan olguların demografik verileri kaydedildi ve 15 D yaşam kalite sorgulaması yapıldı. Maliyetleri hesaplandı. Yaşam kalitesi ölçeği verilerini kullanarak hesaplanan, kaliteye ayarlanmış yaşam yılı (KAYY) sayısını kullanarak ekonomik analiz yapılmıştır. Bulgular: Doksan üç olgunun 75’i (%80,64) kadın, 18’i (%19,35) erkek ve yaş ortalaması 61,45±14,52 idi. Gonartroz, hemipleji, lomber disk herni, Gullian Barre sendromu, omuzun sıkışma sendromu, lomber spondiloz, servikal disk hernisi olan hastaların yaşam kalitesi diğer gruplara göre anlamlı düzeyde düşük bulunmuştur (F=5,89; p<0,05). Gonartroz, hemipleji, lomber disk herni gruplarında tedavi için yapılan harcamalar yaşam kalitesini anlamlı düzeyde artırmaktadır (F=34,12; p<0,05). Sonuç: Gonartroz, hemipleji, lomber disk hernisi, yaşam kalitesini en çok bozan hastalıklardır. Bu hastalıklarda tedavi için yapılan harcalamalar yaşam kalitelerini anlamlı düzeyde arttırmaktadır.

Keywords

• Fizyoterapi, Maliyet analizi, Yaşam kalitesi

References

1. 1. Yıldırım-Kaptanoğlu A. Sağlık ekonomisi. Yıldırım-Kaptanoğlu A, editör. Sağlık Yönetimi 1. Baskı. İstanbul: Beşir Kitabevi, 2011; 2668.
2. 2. Ham C. Priority setting in health care. Learning from international experience. Health Policy 1997;42:49-66. doi:10.1016/S01688510(97)00054-7
3. 3. Burckhardt CS, Anderson KL. The quality of life scale (QOLS): Reliability, validity and utilization. HQLO 2003; 23: 1-60. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-60
4. 4. Drummond MF. Basic types of economic evaluation. In:Drummond M F, Stoddart G L, Torrance G W , editors. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987:15-7.
5. 5. The WHOQOL Group. The development of the World Health Organisation quality of life assessment instrument (the WHOQOL). In: Orley J, Kuyken W, editors. Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer,1994: 41-57.
6. 6. Laas K, Roine R, Räsänen P, Sintonen H, Leirisalo-Repo M; HUS QoL Study Group. Health-related quality of life in patients with common rheumatic diseases referred to a university clinic. Rheumatol Int 2009; 29: 267-73. doi: 10.1007/s00296-008-0673-x
7. 7. Yfantopoulos J. Validation and measurement of quality of life in Greece using EQ-15D. Arch Hell Med 2001;18:279-87.
8. 8. Sintonen H. The 15D measure of health-related quality of life. Reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. National Centre for Health Program Evaluation. Working Paper 41. Melbourne, Australia: Heidelberg Publication, 1994.

9. 9. Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. A fifteen dimensional measure of healthrelated quality of life (15D) and its applications. In: Walker SR, Rosser RM, editors. Quality of Life Assessment. Key Issues in the 1990s. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer, 1993: 185-95, 467-70.
10. 10. Akinci F, Yildirim A, Ogutman B, et al. Translation, cultural adaptation, initial reliability, and validation of Turkish 15D’s version: a generic health-related quality of life(HRQoL) instrument. Eval Health Prof 2005;28:53-66. doi: 10.1177/0163278704273078
11. 11. Emanuel EJ. Where are the health care cost savings? JAMA 2012;307:39-40. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1927
12. 12. Dalal AA, Shah M, Lunacsek O, Hanania NA. Clinical and economic burden of depression/anxiety in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients within a managed care population. COPD 2011;8:293-9. doi: 10.3109/15412555.2011.586659. Epub 2011 Aug.
13. 13. Theodore K. Chronic non-communicable diseases and the economy. West Indian Med J 2011;60:392-6.
14. 14. Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care 2005;43:736–49.
15. 15. Shepard DS, Hodgkin D, Antony Y. Analysis of hospital cost: a manuel for managers. Geneva. World Health Organisation 2000. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2000/9241545283.pdf.
16. 16. Bookwala J, Jacobs J. Age, marital processes, and depressed affect. Gerontologist. 2004; 44:328-38.
17. 17. Bookwala J. Marital quality as a moderator of the effects of poor vision on quality of life among older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2011;66:605-16. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr091