Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Obstetric brachial plexus injuries (OBPIs): health-related quality of life in affected adults and parents

Authors: Christopher W. H. Yau, Elena Pizzo, Chetankumar Prajapati, Tim Draycott, Erik Lenguerrand

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Obstetric brachial plexus injuries (OBPIs) are rare but can have significant implications for those affected, their caregivers and the health system. Symptoms can range from restricted movement to complete paralysis of the arm. We investigated health-related quality of life in adults with OBPIs and parents of children with permanent OBPIs, compared these with population norms, and investigated whether certain socio-demographic or clinical factors were associated with the quality of life in these cohorts.

Methods

A cross-sectional study examined 50 affected adults and 78 parents. Participants completed EQ-5D-5 L and characteristics questionnaires. EQ-5D-5 L responses were mapped onto an EQ-5D-3 L value set to generate utility scores. Mean utility scores were compared with English population norms. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were conducted to assess for associations between participant characteristics and the utility scores.

Results

The overall mean utility scores for affected adults and parents were 0.56 (SD 0.28) and 0.80 (SD 0.19) respectively. Affected adults (95% CI (− 0.38, − 0.22), p < 0.001) and parents of children with permanent OBPIs (95% CI (− 0.10, − 0.02), p = 0.007) had lower mean utility scores, and therefore quality of life, compared to English population norms. For affected adults, previous OBPI surgery (95% CI (0.01, 0.25), p = 0.040), employment in non-manual work (95% CI (0.06, 0.30), p = 0.005) and having a partner (95% CI (0.04, 0.25), p = 0.009) appeared to be positively associated with the utility score. Affected adults receiving disability benefits related to OBPIs appeared to have worse utility scores than those not receiving any disability benefits (95% CI (− 0.31, − 0.06), p = 0.005). For parents, employment was associated with better utility scores (95% CI (0.02, 0.20), p = 0.024) but the presence of one or more medical condition appeared to be associated with worse utility scores (95% CI (− 0.16, − 0.04), p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Adults with OBPIs and parents of children with permanent OBPIs reported worse utility scores, and therefore quality of life, compared to the English general population. We also identified certain characteristics as possible factors to consider when dealing with utility scores in these cohorts. The utility scores in this study can be used in future economic evaluations related to OBPIs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Evans-Jones G, Kay SPJ, Weindling AM, Cranny G, Ward A, Bradshaw A, et al. Congenital brachial palsy: incidence, causes, and outcome in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2003;88(3):F185–9.CrossRef
2.
Chauhan SP, Blackwell SB, Ananth CV. Neonatal brachial plexus palsy: incidence, prevalence, and temporal trends. Semin Perinatol. 2014;38(4):210–8.CrossRef
3.
Narakas AO. Obstetric brachial plexus injuries. In: Lamb DW, editor. The paralysed hand. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1987. p. 116–35.
4.
Louden E, Allgier A, Overton M, Welge J, Mehlman CT. The impact of pediatric brachial plexus injury on families. J Hand Surg Am. 2015;40(6):1190–5.CrossRef
5.
NHS LA. Ten years of maternity claims. NHS LA: An Analysis of NHS Litigation Authority Data; 2012.
6.
RCOG. Green-top guideline no.42. Shoulder dystocia. London: RCOG; 2012.
7.
Gherman RB, Chauhan S, Oh C, Goodwin TM. Brachial plexus palsy. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2005;16(03):221–43.CrossRef
8.
Crofts JF, Lenguerrand E, Bentham GL, Tawfik S, Claireaux HA, Odd D, et al. Prevention of brachial plexus injury-12 years of shoulder dystocia training: an interrupted time-series study. BJOG. 2016;123(1):111–8.CrossRef
9.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care Programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
10.
Guinness L. Wiseman V [eds]. Introduction to health economics. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2011.
11.
Culligan PJ, Myers JA, Goldberg RP, Blackwell L, Gohmann SF, Abell TD. Elective cesarean section to prevent anal incontinence and brachial plexus injuries associated with macrosomia—a decision analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2005;16(1):19–28.CrossRef
12.
Dematteo CDG, Bain JR, Harper JA, Gjertsen D, Harper JA. “Wondering and waiting” after obstetrical brachial plexus injury: are we underestimating the effects of the traumatic experience on the families? Plast Surg. 2014;22(3):183–7.CrossRef
13.
Beck CT. The arm: there is no escaping the reality for mothers of children with obstetric brachial plexus injuries. Nurs Res. 2009;58(4):237–45.CrossRef
14.
15.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D [EQ-5D-5L]. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.CrossRef
16.
Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.CrossRef
17.
Devlin N, Shah K, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life: An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):7–22.CrossRef
18.
19.
Hernández-Alava M, Pudney S. eq5dmap: a command for mapping between EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. Stata J. 2018;18(2):395–415.
20.
21.
Sterne JA, Davey SG. Sifting the evidence—what’s wrong with significance tests? BMJ. 2001;322(7280):226–31.CrossRef
22.
Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1998;16:736–41.CrossRef
23.
König H-H, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC, Matschinger H, Martinex M, Vilagut G, et al. Comparison of Population Health Status in Six European Countries. Results of a Representative Survey Using the EQ-5D Questionnaire. Med Care. 2009;47(2):255–61.CrossRef
24.
Feng Y, Devlin N, Herdman M. Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:171.CrossRef
25.
Wittenberg E, Prosser LA. Disutility of illness for caregivers and families: a systematic review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(6):489–500.CrossRef
26.
Poley MJ, Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA, Tibboel D. Assessing health-related quality-of-life changes in informal caregivers: an evaluation in parents of children with major congenital anomalies. Qual Life Res. 2011;21(5):849–61.CrossRef
27.
Bhadhuri A, Jowett S, Jolly K, Al-Janabi H. A comparison of the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D for measuring health spillovers: a study of the family impact of meningitis. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37(8):882–93.CrossRef
28.
29.
Hernández-Alava M, Pudney S. Econometric modelling of multiple self-reports of health states: the switch from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L in evaluating drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis. J Health Econ. 2017;55:139–52.CrossRef
30.
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.CrossRef
31.
Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27.CrossRef
32.
Wailoo A, Hernández-Alava M, Grimm S, Pudney S, Gomes M, Sadique Z, et al. Comparing the EQ-5D-3L and 5L vesrions, what are the implications for cost-effectiveness estimates? Decision support unit. 2017.
33.
Chang KW-C, Justice D, Chung KC, Yang LJ-S. A systematic review of evaluation methods for neonatal brachial plexus palsy: a review. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2013;12(4):395–405.CrossRef
34.
Wilson TJ, Chang KW-C, Chauhan SP, Yang LJ-S. Peripartum and neonatal factors associated with the persistence of neonatal brachial plexus palsy at 1 year: a review of 382 cases. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2016;17(5):618–24.CrossRef
35.
Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics. 2005;115(5):e600–14.CrossRef
36.
Noyes J, Edwards RT. EQ-5D for the assessment of health-related quality of life and resource allocation in children: a systematic methodological review. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1117–29.CrossRef
37.
Squitieri L, Larson BP, Chang KW-C, Yang LJ-S, Chung KC. Understanding quality of life and patient expectations among adolescents with neonatal brachial plexus palsy: a qualitative and quantitative pilot study. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38(12):2387–97.CrossRef
38.
Kind P, Klose K, Gusi N, Olivares PR, Greiner W. Can adult weights be used to value child health states? Testing the influence of perspective in valuing EQ-5D-Y. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(10):2519–39.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Obstetric brachial plexus injuries (OBPIs): health-related quality of life in affected adults and parents
Authors
Christopher W. H. Yau
Elena Pizzo
Chetankumar Prajapati
Tim Draycott
Erik Lenguerrand
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1039-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

The interpretation of change score of the pain disability index after vocational rehabilitation is baseline dependent

Research

Validation of the LITHUANIAN version of the 19-item audit of diabetes dependent quality of life (ADDQOL – LT) questionnaire in patients with diabetes

Research

Chinese translation and psychometric testing of the cardiac self-efficacy scale in patients with coronary heart disease in mainland China

Research

Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in asthma? Acceptability and content validity from the patient perspective

Research

Validation of the shortened Hunter Syndrome-Functional Outcomes for Clinical Understanding Scale (HS-FOCUS)

Commentary

Measuring outcomes of community aged care programs: challenges, opportunities and the Australian Community Outcomes Measurement ACCOM tool