SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Health-related quality of life;
  • Adolescents;
  • Juvenile idiopathic arthritis;
  • Functional disability

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

Objective

To describe the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and to examine the usefulness of the Juvenile Arthritis Quality of Life Questionnaire (JAQQ) in a UK context. It was hypothesized that HRQOL would decrease with worsening disease and disability.

Methods

Patients with JIA ages 11, 14, and 17 years were recruited from 10 major rheumatology centers. HRQOL was measured using the JAQQ. Other data were core outcome variables including the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire, demographic characteristics, arthritis-related knowledge, and satisfaction with health care.

Results

Questionnaires were completed by 308 adolescents. One-fifth had persistent oligoarthritis. Median disease duration was 5.7 years (range <1–16 years). The JAQQ was shown to have good psychometric properties when used in the UK, but was not without limitations. HRQOL of adolescents with JIA was less than optimal, particularly in the domains of gross motor and systemic functioning. Items most frequently rated as adolescents' biggest psychological problems were “felt frustrated” and “felt depressed,” rated by 30.2% and 23.4%, respectively. These were particularly problematic for the 17-year-olds, with 39% reporting frustration as one of their biggest problems and 63.6% reporting depression. Variation in the adolescent JAQQ scores was explained by functional disability, pain, and disease activity.

Conclusion

JIA can have a significant adverse effect on the HRQOL of adolescents. The JAQQ is a useful tool to assess the HRQOL of UK adolescents with JIA, but there is need for improved measures that incorporate developmentally appropriate issues.


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a heterogeneous group of disorders that affects more than 1 in 1,000 young persons in the UK (1). Living with JIA is likely to be challenging at any age. However, its impact during adolescence may be particularly difficult (2, 3). Growth and puberty can be affected, and important adolescent tasks (i.e., consolidation of identity, independence from parents, establishing relationships outside the family, finding a vocation) may also be disrupted (2, 4).

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important outcome measure in understanding the impact of chronic illness (5), including childhood-onset rheumatic diseases (6–8). HRQOL is typically conceptualized as a multidimensional construct that reflects the definition of health proposed by the World Health Organization (9) and, by focusing on the patient's personal perspective of health, supports the view that young people should be consulted about issues and events that directly affect their lives (10–13). It is important to note that HRQOL is conceptually distinct from quality of life (QOL) (8, 14). The latter is a much broader construct in which health is only 1 of many determinants and therefore may not be affected by intervention. In a study of 122 patients (ages 1–18 years) referred for rheumatologic care, Feldman et al (8) found that overall, QOL was higher than HRQOL and that HRQOL explained only a small to moderate amount of the variation in QOL scores.

As yet, the HRQOL of adolescents with JIA has received limited assessment (6–8, 15, 16). Few studies have focused specifically on JIA, and although adolescents are included within the study samples, the authors have not differentiated their findings on the basis of age or developmental level. Knowledge about HRQOL in adolescents is consequently difficult to disentangle from that of younger children. Overall, the findings suggest that children and young persons with JIA have worse HRQOL than healthy controls (15) and that HRQOL decreases with increasing disease severity (8, 16), active joint count (16), pain (6, 7, 16), degree of disability (7, 8), and reduced general health/well- being (7).

One established disease-specific measure of HRQOL in childhood-onset rheumatic disease is the Juvenile Arthritis Quality of Life Questionnaire (JAQQ) (16). Preliminary analyses in Canada have demonstrated the JAQQ to be valid and responsive to change when used with 91 children (ages 1–18 years) with chronic arthritides (16). That study, together with work by Brunner and Giannini in the US (7), has supported construct validity through strong to moderate correlations with functional ability (as measured by the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire [CHAQ]) (7); moderate correlations with pain (7, 16), global ratings of health (7), and well-being (7); and weak correlations with active joint count (16) and joint severity (16).

Criterion validity in the context of concurrent validity has also been demonstrated through strong correlations between the JAQQ and the Pediatric Quality of Life Questionnaire Inventory Rheumatology Module (7, 15). However, there are no published studies reporting the validity and reliability of the JAQQ among UK samples and no studies that have specifically explored the HRQOL of adolescents with JIA. Therefore, in addition to describing the HRQOL of adolescents with JIA, the present study aims to examine the usefulness of the JAQQ in measuring HRQOL among adolescents in a UK context and to explore the roles of demographic and disease-related factors in HRQOL. In line with previous studies, it was hypothesized that HRQOL would decrease with worsening disease, disability, and well-being.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

Participants.

The patients and parents included in this study were part of a national clinical trial to evaluate a program of transitional care (17). Three age cohorts (11, 14, or 17 years, ±1 month), corresponding to early, middle, and late phases of adolescence, were recruited from 10 pediatric rheumatology centers represented in the British Society of Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology (BSPAR). To be eligible for the study, patients needed to have a diagnosis of JIA as defined by the revised International League of Associations for Rheumatology criteria (18) and were expected to remain in the pediatric care of a consultant member of the BSPAR for at least 6 months (19).

Measures.

Clinical data were provided by the senior clinician. Patient and parent data were collected using individual questionnaires designed for self completion, with support from local program coordinators where necessary.

HRQOL.

HRQOL was assessed using the JAQQ (16), which consists of 74 items grouped into 4 dimensions: gross motor function (17 items), fine motor function (16 items), psychosocial function (22 items), and systemic symptoms (19 items). The response format for each item uses a 7-point, Likert-type, frequency/difficulty scale (where 1 = none of the time/never and 7 = all of the time/always). Each item also has a “does not apply to me” option. The mean score for the 5 highest scoring items in each of the 4 dimensions is computed as the dimension score; the total JAQQ score is computed as the mean across the 4 dimensions, again with a score range from 1 to 7. Higher scores indicate lower HRQOL. In addition, respondents are also asked to select up to 5 areas of functioning that represent their “biggest problems” within each domain.

Demographic and disease-related data.

Data were collected on age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status based on the reduced 5-class version of National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (20), family structure, parental marital status/education/employment, and adolescents' educational and prevocational status (including statements of special educational need, a legal requirement in the UK stating that every child with a disability is entitled to an individualized program of additional resources during their school years to optimize their educational opportunities). Other data included JIA onset subtype, age at onset, age at diagnosis, disease duration, and independent health behaviors (self medication, independent consultations).

Core outcome variables.

Core outcome variables included a validated 6-item data set of 1) physician's global assessment (PGA) of overall disease activity, 2) a measure of acute-phase proteins (either erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR] or C-reactive protein [CRP]), 3) active joint count, 4) limited joint count, 5) the British version of the CHAQ (scores range between 0 and 3, with higher scores indicating greater disability) as modified for use with adolescents in the UK (including 100-mm visual analog scales for pain [VAS-pain]), and 6) a patient or parent estimate of the patient's overall well-being (VAS-global) (19–22).

Arthritis-related knowledge.

Knowledge was assessed using a 16-item, disease-specific, multidimensional measure with multiple-choice response format (23). Final knowledge scores range from 0 to 16, where higher scores indicate greater knowledge.

Satisfaction with rheumatology care.

Satisfaction was measured using a 22-item measure designed for this study. Items included statements about the physical environment, clinic procedures, relationships with health care personnel, information, and support. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which each item represents “best” and “current” care using a 7-point Likert scale anchored by “strongly disagree” at 1 and “strongly agree” at 7. Satisfaction with each item was conceptualized as the gap between respondents' “best” and “current” score (i.e., their “gap” score). Overall, satisfaction was computed as the mean of all gap scores. Scores ranged between 0 and 7, with higher scores indicating lower satisfaction. The study had Multicentre and Local Research Ethics Committee approval, and all participants gave written informed consent.

Statistical analyses.

SPSS version 11.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL) was used to perform all analyses on the quantitative data. There was evidence of skewness for some variables, which led to the choice of nonparametric inferential statistics.

The psychometric properties of the JAQQ (16) in a UK context were examined in relation to the following: feasibility, assessed by examining completion rates; face validity, assessed by examining the number of “not applicable” answers; reliability, assessed by examining the JAQQ's internal consistency, using Cronbach's coefficient (results from homogeneous groups are typically expected to reach coefficients >0.8 [24]); and construct validity. (Based on HRQOL theory and previous results [6–8, 15, 16], it was predicted that adolescents who reported high levels of disease activity, pain, physical disability, and poor general health would have low HRQOL [reflected by high JAQQ scores]. Previous use of the JAQQ [7, 16] suggested a number of a piori predictions: that the strongest correlations would be observed between JAQQ and disability [CHAQ], that pain and well-being would be at least moderately correlated, and that active joint count would be weakly correlated. Therefore, construct validity was examined through Spearman's correlations between the JAQQ and the core outcome variables.) Group differences were analyzed using chi-square, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis or Jonckheere-Terpstra, and Friedman's tests, as appropriate. Associations between the study variables were analyzed using Spearman's rho correlations. The strength of statistically significant correlations was defined as very weak (rs < 0.20), weak (rs = 0.20–0.39), moderate (rs = 0.4–0.69), strong (rs = 0.70–0.89), and very strong (rs = 0.90–1) (25).

Stepwise linear regression was used to identify the best predictors of JAQQ. Variables entered into the analysis included only those that displayed significant univariate relationships with the JAQQ. This was done to limit the potential explanatory variables to a moderate number and therefore optimize the stability of the estimated regression lines. Linearity was confirmed through scatterplots and appropriate normality tests on residuals were implemented (i.e., inspection of histograms for the residuals and normal probability plots). The extent to which the model fit the data was indicated by the R2 value, which shows the percentage of variance in JAQQ that can be explained uniquely or jointly by the independent variables. The change in R2 for the regression upon entry of a variable was taken as the proportion of the variation in final JAQQ scores explained by that variable.

In view of the relatively small numbers of certain JIA subtypes in each age group (unpublished observation), patients were divided into 2 main groups, “oligoarthritis persistent” and “other,” which were, by definition, patients who had primarily polyarthritis and/or had systemic involvement (significant extraarticular disease) with arthritis. Ethnicity categories were similarly collapsed into “white/European” and “other.” Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level.

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

Patients.

A total of 359 adolescents were invited to participate, of whom 308 (85.79%) accepted. Participant characteristics are presented in Table 1. Full details of the baseline data are presented elsewhere (19). In summary, the largest proportion of patients was represented by the 14-year-old age group (41.6% of the sample). The 11- and 17-year-olds accounted for 33.4% and 25.0%, respectively. Analyses between the 3 age groups indicated no significant differences in demographic background. However, as one would expect, older age was significantly associated with increased duration of care, age at onset, age at diagnosis, and disease duration. The proportion of patients with other JIA also increased with older age groups, reflecting expected evolution of disease subtypes and age-related differences in disease onset. There were no differences in the core outcome variables, with the exception that adolescent-rated pain significantly increased in the older age group (P = 0.027).

Table 1. Adolescent demographics (n = 308)*
DemographicAll n = 30811 years n = 10314 years n = 12817 years n = 77
  • *

    Values are the median (range) unless otherwise indicated. JIA = juvenile idiopathic arthritis; VAS = visual analog scale; PGA = physician's global assessment; CHAQ = Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire.

  • Based on the data of 303 adolescents who had attending parents.

  • P < 0.01 (significant difference between age groups).

  • §

    P < 0.0001 (significant difference between age groups).

  • P < 0.05 (significant difference between age groups).

Age, years14.2 (10.9–18.0)11.5 (10.9–12.1)14.3 (13.9–15.2)17.3 (16.8–18.0)
Sex, male:female1:1.51:1.81:1.31:1.7
Ethnicity, no. (%) white/European274 (91.0)97 (94.2)112 (88.2)64 (91.4)
Two parents at home, no. (%)260 (85.8)62 (89.3)108 (84.4)60 (84.5)
Attending parent with educational qualifications, no. (%)244 (80.5)86 (83.5)102 (80.9)56 (81.2)
Attending parent in full-time employment, no. (%)81 (26.7)21 (20.6)35 (28.2)25 (35.7)
JIA subtype: oligoarthritis persistent, no. (%)60 (19.5)31 (30.1)23 (18.0)6 (7.8)
Age at diagnosis, years9.0 (1.0–17.0)§7.8 (1.0–11.8)9.5 (1.1–14.3)11.4 (1.3–17.0)
Disease duration, years5.7 (0.0–16.3)§3.9 (0.1–10.9)5.8 (0.3–14.3)6.9 (0.0–16.3)
Disease activity (VAS-PGA)10 (0–99)11 (0–97)8 (0–99)10 (0–72)
Active joint count0 (0–42)0 (0–42)0 (0–31)1 (0–24)
Limited joint count2 (0–71)2 (0–71)2 (0–52)2 (0–52)
VAS-pain16 (0–100)14 (0–99)15 (0–100)30 (0–93)
VAS-global17 (0–94)14 (0–86)19 (0–94)23 (0–89)
CHAQ0.5 (0.0–3.0)0.5 (0.0–3.0)0.4 (0.0–2.9)0.7 (0.0–2.6)

Psychometric properties of the JAQQ within a UK context.

Feasibility.

Despite being administered among other questionnaire-based measures, the JAQQ appeared feasible with all 308 adolescents who chose to complete the scale. Of these, 241 (78.2%) managed to complete all of the 74 items. Anecdotal reports from local program coordinators also suggested that several participants (primarily 11-year-olds) required assistance in addition to explanation of certain “Canadianisms” (e.g., running 2 “blocks,” “pants” instead of trousers).

Completion varied significantly by domain (P = 0.001), with the number of adolescents completing all items ranging from 301 (97.7%) for fine motor function and 292 (94.8%) for systemic problems to 278 (90.3%) for gross motor function and 277 (89.9%) for psychological function. When all adolescents were considered, median completion rates were high at 100.0% (range 70.3–100.0%) for the entire scale.

Face validity.

Face validity regarding the relevance of the items appeared acceptable. The median number of items rated that were not applicable for the entire scale was 0 (range 0–56). Level of applicability varied significantly between domains (P < 0.001), with gross motor function having the greatest proportion of not applicable answers. Higher levels of not applicable answers in this domain were significantly, albeit weakly, related to older age (ρ = 0.194, P < 0.001), greater pain (ρ = 0.190, P < 0.001), worse general well-being (ρ = 0.147, P = 0.001), and functional disability (ρ = 0.210, P < 0.001). A similar pattern was found for the fine motor domain (data not shown) with the exception of age. The applicability of the psychological function and systemic function domains was not significantly influenced by age or core outcome variables.

Reliability.

The internal consistency of each subscale was indicated by Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.94 for gross motor, α = 0.97 for fine motor, α = 0.93 for psychological, and α = 0.88 for systemic problems). Cronbach's alpha for the entire scale was 0.96.

Construct validity.

Construct validity for the JAQQ was supported through significant positive correlations with ratings of disease activity, ESR, CRP, number of active joints, number of limited joints, pain, general health problems, and functional disability, and confirmed the a priori predictions (Table 2).

Table 2. Univariate relationships with health-related quality of life*
VariableJAQQGross motorFine motorPsychologicalSystemic
  • *

    Values are the median (range) unless otherwise indicated. JAQQ = Juvenile Arthritis Quality of Life Questionnaire; NS-SEC = National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification; rs = Spearman's correlation coefficient; NS = not significant; JIA = juvenile idiopathic arthritis; ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP = C-reactive protein; PGA = physician's global assessment; CHAQ = Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire; VAS = visual analog scale.

  • P < 0.05.

  • P < 0.01.

  • §

    P < 0.001.

NS-SEC, rs0.1390.1550.114NSNS
JIA subtypeNS§NS
 Oligoarticular persistent2.5 (1.0–5.1)1.0 (1–7)2.1 (1–6.6)
 Rest2.8 (1.0–6.8)1.6 (1–7)3.0 (1–7)
ESR, rs0.2100.320§0.282NSNS
CRPNSNSNSNSNS
PGA, rs0.393§0.358§0.347§0.217§0.402§
Number of active joints, rs0.336§0.316§0.261§−0.1590.389§
Number of limited joints, rs0.400§0.371§0.449§0.2030.284§
Functional status (CHAQ), rs0.740§0.681§0.744§0.495§0.593§
VAS-global, rs0.649§0.615§0.503§0.462§0.670§
VAS-pain, rs0.685§0.601§0.499§0.465§0.617§
Medication§§§§§
 Single therapy2.2 (1.0–6.8)2.4 (1–7)1.0 (1–7)2.2 (1–7)2.4 (1–7)
 Combination therapy3.3 (1.4–6.6)4.2 (1–7)2.2 (1–7)3.0 (1–7)3.4 (1–7)
Comorbidity§
 Secondary diagnoses3.2 (1.0–6.4)3.9 (1–7)1.8 (1–7)3.0 (1–7)3.2 (1–7)
 No secondary diagnoses2.4 (1.0–7.0)2.8 (1–7)1.2 (1–7)2.3 (1–7)2.6 (1–7)
Statement of Special Educational Need§§§§§
 Yes4.0 (1.1–6.4)5.0 (1–7)3.2 (1–7)3.6 (1–6.6)3.7 (1–7)
 No2.6 (1.0–6.8)2.8 (1–7)1.4 (1–7)2.4 (1–7)2.9 (1–7)
Arthritis-related knowledge, rs0.1370.1500.201§NS0.131
Satisfaction with rheumatology health care, rsNS0.136NSNSNS
Parental employment
 Employed full time2.3 (1.0–6.2)2.6 (1–7)1.2 (1–6.6)2.2 (1–6.4)2.6 (1–6.4)
 Not employed full time2.9 (1.0–6.8)3.4 (1–7)1.6 (1–7)3.0 (1–7)3.0 (1–7)
Parental marital statusNSNSNS
 2 parents2.7 (1.0–6.6)2.5 (1–7)
 1 parent3.2 (1.0–6.8)3.4 (1–7)

HRQOL of adolescents with JIA.

JAQQ summary scores.

Adolescent ratings of HRQOL are shown in Table 3. The median JAQQ score for the entire sample was 2.7 with no significant differences between the age groups (P = 0.212). Across the domains, the highest level of problems was generally reported in the area of gross motor function. Least problems were reported in fine motor function. The domain scores did not differ between age groups (data not shown).

Table 3. Juvenile Arthritis Quality of Life Questionnaire (JAQQ) scores*
 All (n = 308)11-year-olds (n = 103)14-year-olds (n = 128)17-year-olds (n = 77)
  • *

    Scores range from 1 to 7, with higher scores indicating worse health-related quality of life. Values are the median (range).

JAQQ (entire scale)2.7 (1–6.8)2.7 (1–6.6)2.5 (1–6.3)2.9 (1–6.8)
Gross motor function3.0 (1–7)3.0 (1–7)3.0 (1–7)3.6 (1–7)
Fine motor function1.6 (1–7)1.6 (1–7)1.4 (1–7)1.8 (1–7)
Psychosocial function2.6 (1–7)3.0 (1–7)2.4 (1–7)2.6 (1–7)
Systemic problems3.0 (1–7)3.0 (1–7)2.6 (1–7)3.2 (1–7)

Areas of greatest difficulty.

Adolescents were asked to rate their 5 biggest problems in each of the domains.

Gross motor function.

Adolescents selected a median of 3 (range 0–5) items, with only 108 (35.1%) selecting the requested 5 items. The number of items selected did not differ by age group (P = 0.112). Items most frequently rated as adolescents' biggest problems included “kneeling or sitting on heels for several minutes,” “standing for half an hour,” and “running 2 blocks,” selected by 47.1%, 43.1%, and 40.9% of adolescents, respectively. Adolescents in the 14-year-old group also seemed to have problems “participating in physical education classes” (rated by 46.1%) and “playing a favorite sport” (35.9%). Although no sex difference was noted in the 14-year-old group, males were more likely than females to select favorite sport as their biggest problem (29.9% of males, 17.2% of females; P = 0.026) when the whole sample was considered. Items least frequently rated as problematic included “chewing and swallowing food” (rated by 1.6% of the entire sample), “pulling on sweater or coat” (2.6%), and “putting on underwear, skirt, or pants” (1.6%). Adolescents identified several additional problems, although none were raised by more than 1% of the entire sample. This said, 2.6% of 17-year-olds indicated that driving was one of their biggest gross motor problems. Approximately one-fifth (21.4%) selected no items.

Fine motor function.

Adolescents selected a median of 1 (range 0–5) items, with only 60 (19.5%) selecting the requested 5 items. The number of items selected did not differ by age group (P = 0.620)

Items most frequently rated as adolescents' biggest problems included “twisting off a bottle/jar top (previously opened)” and “opening a soft drink can,” identified by 21.1% and 19.8% of adolescents, respectively. Several items appeared particularly problematic for the 17-year-olds, including “pulling on socks” (31.2%), “tying shoe laces” (27.7%), and “putting on shoes” (22.1%).

Items least frequently rated as problematic included “brushing teeth,” “putting on shirt/blouse,” and “lifting a cup and drinking from it,” each rated by 2.9% of adolescents. Adolescents identified several additional problems, although none were raised by more than 1% of the sample. Almost one-fifth (19.5%) selected no items.

Psychological function.

Adolescents selected a median of 2 (0–5) items, with only 82 (26.6%) selecting the requested 5 items. The number of items selected did not differ by age group (P = 0.935).

Items most frequently rated as adolescents' biggest psychological problems were “felt frustrated” and “felt depressed,” rated by 30.2% and 23.4%, respectively. These were particularly problematic for the 17-year-olds, with 39% reporting frustration as one of their biggest problems and 63.6% reporting depression.

Adolescents most likely to rate frustration as one of their biggest problems were those with greater disease activity (P = 0.010), worse pain (P < 0.001), worse general health (P < 0.001), and greater functional disability (P = 0.001). Adolescents selecting depression were similarly characterized by greater disease activity (P = 0.032), worse pain (P < 0.001), worse general health (P < 0.001), and greater functional disability (P < 0.001). Other characteristic features of the depressed group were greater number of active joints (P = 0.007), inclusion in the 17-year-old group (P = 0.006), and mid-range age at arthritis onset (6–12 years; P = 0.040).

Other frequently rated psychological problems included “interacted poorly with brothers and sisters” (18.5%), “felt sad” (18.5%), and “argued a lot” (17.2%). Items least frequently rated as problematic included “disobeyed teachers” (rated by 2.6% of participants) and “complained of loneliness” (2.3%). Adolescents identified several additional problems, although none were raised by more than 1% of the sample. A total of 126 adolescents (40.9%) selected no items.

Systemic problems.

Adolescents selected a median of 3 (0–5) items, with only 96 (31.2%) selecting the requested 5 items. The number of items selected did not differ by age group (P = 0.261).

Items most frequently rated as adolescents' biggest problems included “stiffness” (rated by 43.2%), “joint tenderness” (41.2%), “tires easily” (37.3%), “joint swelling” (35.4%), “headache” (28.2%), and “decreased or limited strength” (20.5%). Joint tenderness and tiredness were particularly problematic for the 17-year-olds (reported by 53.2% and 49.4%, respectively). Again, adolescents identified several additional problems, although none were raised by more than 1% of the sample. More than one-quarter (27.9%) selected no items.

Relationship between HRQOL and other study variables.

The strengths of significant univariate relationships between HRQOL and the study variables are shown in Table 2.

Demographic variables.

Worse HRQOL was weakly correlated with lower socioeconomic status and significantly related to adolescents who had only 1 parent at home and whose attending parent was not in full-time employment. However, with the exception of parental employment, these relationships were not consistent between the dimensions. Socioeconomic status was related only to the physical dimensions, and marital status to the psychological dimension. HRQOL was also unrelated to age at assessment, sex, and ethnicity.

Disease-related variables.

Worse HRQOL was consistently related to having comorbidity, a statement of special educational need, and multiple therapies. Worse HRQOL was also related to subtypes of JIA other than persistent oligoarthritis, although not in relation to the gross motor and systemic dimensions. Variables not significantly related to HRQOL included duration of care at current hospital, age at onset, age at diagnosis, disease duration, or independent health behaviors (i.e., self medication and independent clinic visits).

Core outcome variables.

With respect to correlational data, worse HRQOL was consistently related to greater disability, greater pain, worse general well-being, greater joint involvement (active and limited), and greater physician-rated disease activity. Worse HRQOL was also related to higher ESR scores (for overall JAQQ and the physical dimensions only), but was unrelated to CRP.

Disease knowledge.

Worse HRQOL was very weakly related to lower disease-related knowledge (with the exception of the psychological dimension).

Satisfaction with health care.

Lower satisfaction was very weakly correlated with worse scores on the gross motor dimension but not with the other dimensions or overall HRQOL. When those variables exhibiting significant relationships were entered into stepwise linear multiple regression analyses, the final regression model explained 66.5% of the variation in baseline adolescent JAQQ scores (Table 4). Collectively, CHAQ explained the greatest variation (59.6%) to which PGA added a further 4.7% and VAS-pain added a further 2.2%.

Table 4. Multivariate relationships with health-related quality of life*
 BPIncrements in R2
  • *

    B = regression coefficient for each variable; R2 = percentage of the variation explained; CHAQ = Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire; VAS = visual analog scale; PGA = physician's global assessment.

CHAQ1.139< 0.00159.6
VAS-PGA0.015< 0.0014.7
VAS-pain0.0090.0142.2
Constant1.704< 0.001 
Total  66.5

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

This study of HRQOL in JIA is the largest to date in the UK and is unique in the international literature for its focus on adolescents. The results indicate that the HRQOL of adolescents with JIA is less than optimal, particularly in the domains of gross motor and systemic functioning, and, as hypothesized, has significant and independent relationships with pain, disease activity, and functional disability. As such, the results are consistent with previous studies of HRQOL (6–8). Improvement of HRQOL is, therefore, inextricably linked with managing these key aspects of care. However, not all of the variation in JAQQ scores could be explained, and understanding the role of other determinants will be crucial in promoting adolescents' HRQOL.

It is of concern that almost one-third of participants reported frustration among their biggest problems. Adolescents with JIA are faced with symptoms that can be difficult to relieve, activities they cannot perform, and the uncertainty of daily fluctuations and long-term prognosis. In this context, frustration is not unexpected. However, establishing realistic expectations and emotional responses (e.g., through cognitive techniques) is an important step in self management. Holman and Lorig (26) specified 7 basic components of self management. These included minimizing or overcoming disability (e.g., through exercise, nutrition, or rest), establishing realistic expectations and emotional responses to the changes of circumstances caused by the disease, interpreting and managing symptoms, learning how to judge the effects of medications and manage their use, learning to become a good problem solver, communicating with health professionals, and using social resources.

Although self-management programs are established in adult rheumatology practice (26) and have been shown to be effective (27–29), similar efforts have not been made in the field of adolescent rheumatology, despite the fact that adolescence represents the time when responsibility for disease management typically shifts from parents and professionals to the adolescent. Self management is just as necessary for adolescents as it is for adults, and it is likely that many adolescents could benefit from such intervention, acknowledging that it would have to be developmentally appropriate.

In addition to frustration, more than one-fifth (23.4%) of adolescents also rated depression among their biggest problems. This is concordant with a recent population-based study by Adam et al (30) who found that 19% of Canadian adolescents with arthritis and rheumatism (n = 213) reported depressive symptoms. Although depression does appear to increase substantially from preadolescence to adolescence (31, 32), Adam et al (30) demonstrated greater prevalence of depressive symptoms among adolescents with rheumatic conditions compared with those without, of which only 5% reported depressive symptoms. In our sample, the 17-year-olds appeared to be at greatest risk, with almost two-thirds reporting depressive symptoms, and although this may not necessarily reflect clinical levels of depression, it clearly warrants further attention. Packham et al (33) found that 21.1% of 246 adults with JIA had experienced significant depression in the past, and of these, 38.5% had their first episode between 15 and 25 years. Similar to our study, they also found that depression was most common in those adults whose JIA had begun between 6 and 12 years, as opposed to those with an early or late onset. However, although many adults had previously experienced depression, at the time of the study only 5.2% were depressed (33). The authors attributed this to more effective coping through increased experience. Another explanation is the particular impact of disease onset on early adolescent development. However, although young people may adapt to their disease in time, adolescent depression still requires attention to prevent it from adversely affecting other aspects of development (e.g., education).

This study has also identified other risk factors for depression including greater disease activity, greater number of active joints, worse pain, worse general health, and greater functional disability. To some extent, this may also explain why the 17-year-olds were more likely to select depression as one of their biggest problems, in that they reported significantly greater pain than younger groups and were less likely to have persistent oligoarthritis JIA. This is concordant with findings of other authors (34, 35), including Adam et al (30), who have demonstrated a strong association between pain and depression. Good pain management and appropriate psychological referral of these patients within rheumatology services is therefore critical. Pain management also has a generic relevance beyond musculoskeletal pain, with 28.2% of adolescents reporting headaches. Palermo and Kiska (34) have also shown complex relationships between chronic pain, depression, and sleep disturbances (an area of health not accessed in the JAQQ) and suggest that the HRQOL of adolescents with chronic pain may be substantially improved through interventions that improve their sleep. Sleep difficulties are well recognized in adolescent health, often with a multifactorial etiology (36). Fatigue is closely interrelated with sleep, and the former was frequently reported to be a problem in the JAQQ. A combination of fatigue management, pacing skills, and sleep hygiene are therefore areas of relevance to the adolescent rheumatology team, and further research into interventions addressing these issues is awaited. The role of psychosocial factors in depression also requires further study. Indeed, physical disease factors have explained only a small amount of the variation in the depression of adults with JIA (33), and this is likely to be the case with adolescents. A useful clinical screening tool for use in adolescent rheumatology clinics is the HEADS (home; education; exercise; activities, affect, ambitions; dental, diet, driving, drugs; sleep, sex) mnemonic (37), which captures affect (for mood/frustration/depression), activities (for functional ability), and sleep (to include fatigue).

In addition to describing the HRQOL of adolescents with JIA and discussing potential interventions, this study also provides evidence for the suitability of the JAQQ in a UK context. Preliminary analysis of the JAQQ's psychometric properties when used with UK adolescents has shown it to be feasible, have face validity in terms of item relevance, have excellent internal consistency, and have good construct validity. The authors have also shown it to be responsive to change (38). However, the JAQQ does appear to have a number of limitations when used with this group. Not all adolescents were able to complete the JAQQ independently, particularly the younger adolescents, and more than one-fifth (21.8%) failed to answer all 78 items. Therefore, although the JAQQ is certainly comprehensive, there is a danger that clinically important information may be lost as a consequence. Perhaps one way to adapt the measure for future use is to exclude some of the items that were seldom selected as adolescents' biggest problems. However, this said, it would be important to retain items that are clinically important (e.g., “blood on stools”).

In terms of face validity, most items were seen as relevant by the majority of adolescents. However, it did appear that at least some adolescents who are unable to perform activities because of their arthritis are mistakenly rating these as not applicable. “Playing a favorite sport” and “riding a bicycle” appeared to be 2 such items and in both cases were rated not applicable by >10% of adolescents who were characterized by significantly greater pain, worse general well-being, and disability. Validity could therefore be improved by defining the not applicable option more explicitly, perhaps in relation to age as in the CHAQ. It is also important to note that both item generation and face/content validity of the JAQQ were determined in relation to professional opinions. However, face validity usually refers to whether a scale reflects the content of the concept in question, usually in the eyes of the respondent (39). The JAQQ does allow young persons to raise additional issues that are problematic for them. However, although many issues were identified, each was raised by <1% of the sample. The failure to volunteer a significant number of new items may reflect that the instrument is sufficiently complete or that young persons are not inclined to offer additional items after completing the many items that make up each dimension (questionnaire fatigue). The low frequency of some items (e.g., bullying, needle phobia) was surprising in light of the authors' clinical experiences and previous research (2) and may actually reflect the fact that the JAQQ has a relative functional bias, and may not encourage adolescents to think outside of the medical context of the JAQQ. Face validity is likely to be enhanced if item generation is undertaken in close reference to adolescents and if it includes developmentally appropriate domains that reflect the impact of JIA on those social, sexual, educational, and vocational aspects of life that have been shown to be salient for adolescents with JIA (2). Response burden may also be minimized by instructing young persons to read all items but only score a specific number (1, 2, or 3 dependent on the dimension) and then to add others if there more pertinent issues.

To interpret the results, a number of caveats should be mentioned. First, this study has used a single measure of HRQOL that has not been validated within a UK context. Although the JAQQ does appear to be suitable for use within the UK, it is possible that the results reflect unique properties of this measure. For instance, at least 3 of the 4 domains pertain to physical symptoms/function, and therefore it is not surprising that JAQQ scores are significantly related to many of the core outcome variables. However, the core variables also correlated with the psychological domain and support the use of the JAQQ as an HRQOL instrument as opposed to purely a functional assessment tool.

A further difficulty in using the JAQQ is the lack of calibration, and although measures such as the JAQQ have been shown to measure statistically significant changes in scores (16, 38), there remains no agreed definition as to what constitutes good and bad HRQOL and what amount of change is deemed clinically meaningful. In part, this is also limited by the lack of a control group, and therefore further research is required to understand how the HRQOL of adolescents with JIA compares with their healthy peers.

The results must also be considered in relation to the sample, which was largely white with a female predominance. As such, it is difficult to establish the extent to which the JAQQ is culturally and ethnically competent, both of which are important in collecting data with adolescents (40).

In conclusion, this study has demonstrated that JIA can have a significant adverse affect on the HRQOL of adolescents, regardless of their age. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that these issues will spontaneously resolve themselves if left untreated. Indeed, studies show that at least some young adults with JIA are at risk for clinical depression, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and functional problems compared with controls (33, 41–44). However, there is great potential for intervention. Evidence from a recent study has shown significant improvements in the HRQOL of adolescents with JIA who were enrolled in a program of transitional care (38), which, by definition, attended to the “medical, psychosocial, and educational/vocational needs of adolescents as they move from child to adult-centered care” (45).

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

We would like to thank the young persons and their parents who participated in this study; Bev Thomas, the project secretary who tirelessly chased, retrieved, entered, and collated all the data; and Dr. Paul Davies at the University of Birmingham for his statistical advice. We would also like to thank the following contributors: Eileen Baildam, Jeremy Camelleri, Diane Coulson, Joyce Davidson, Sue Ferguson, Helen Foster, Paul Galea, Janet Gardner-Medwin, Janine Hackett, Ann Hall, Gill Jackson, Jane Kelly, Sue Kemp, Nicki Kennedy, Ruth McGowan, Steph Phillips, Clarissa Pilkington, Alison Swift, Helen Venning, Tracey Whitely, Jane Wilby, Sue Wyatt, and Helena Wythe.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Symmons D, Asten P, McNally R, Webb R. Health care need assessment for musculoskeletal diseases: the first step: estimating the number of incident and prevalent cases. Chesterfield (Derbyshire): Arthritis Research Campaign; 2002.
  • 2
    Shaw KL, Southwood TR, McDonagh JE, and the British Paediatric Rheumatology Group. User perspectives of transitional care for adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004; 43: 7708.
  • 3
    Suris JC, Michaud PA, Viner R. The adolescent with a chronic condition. Part I: developmental issues. Arch Dis Child 2004; 89: 93842.
  • 4
    Leak AM. The management of arthritis in adolescence. Br J Rheumatol 1994; 33: 8828.
  • 5
    Eiser C, Morse R. Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5: 1157.
  • 6
    Sawyer MG, Whitham JN, Roberton DM, Taplin JE, Varni JW, Baghurst PA. The relationship between health-related quality of life, pain and coping strategies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004; 43: 32530.
  • 7
    Brunner HI, Giannini EH. Health-related quality of life in children with rheumatic diseases. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2003; 15: 60212.
  • 8
    Feldman BM, Grundland B, McCullough L, Wright V. Distinction of quality of life, health related quality of life, and health status in children referred for rheumatologic care. J Rheumatol 2000; 27: 22633.
  • 9
    World Health Organization. Final report: Regional Working Group on Health Needs of Adolescents. Manilla, Philippines: World Health Organisation; 1980.
  • 10
    Riley AW. Evidence that school-age children can self-report on their health. Ambul Pediatr 2004; 4 Suppl: 3716.
  • 11
    Department of Health. National service framework for children, young people and maternity services. URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/ChildrenServices/ChildrenServicesInformation/fs/en.
  • 12
    Children's Act. London: HMSO; 1989.
  • 13
    United Nations. Convention on the rights of the child. Geneva: United Nations; 1989.
  • 14
    Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994; 272: 61926.
  • 15
    Varni JW, Seid M, Knight TS, Burwinkle T, Brown J, Szer IS. The PedsQL™ in pediatric rheumatology: reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ generic core scales and rheumatology module. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46: 71425.
  • 16
    Duffy CM, Arsenault L, Duffy KN, Paquin JD, Strawczynski H. The Juvenile Arthritis Quality of Life Questionnaire: development of a new responsive index for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile spondyloarthritides. J Rheumatol 1997; 24: 73846.
  • 17
    McDonagh JE, Southwood TR, Shaw KL, and the British Society of Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology. Growing up and moving on in rheumatology: development and preliminary evaluation of a transitional care programme for a multicentre cohort of adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. J Child Health Care. In press.
  • 18
    Petty RE, Southwood TR, Baum J, Bhettay E, Glass DN, Manners P, et al. Revision of the proposed classification criteria for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Durban, 1997. J Rheumatol 1998; 25: 19914.
  • 19
    Shaw KL, Southwood TR, McDonagh JE, and the British Society of Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology. Growing up and moving on in rheumatology: a multicentre cohort of adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005; 44: 80612.
  • 20
    The National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification User Manual. London: HMSO; 2004. URL: www.statistics.gov.uk.
  • 21
    Giannini EH, Ruperto N, Ravelli A, Lovell DJ, Felson DT, Martini A. Preliminary definition of improvement in juvenile arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1997; 40: 12029.
  • 22
    Nugent J, Ruperto N, Grainger J, Machado C, Sawhney S, Baildam E, et al, and the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation. The British version of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) and the Child Health questionnaire (CHQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol 2001; 19 Suppl 23: S1637.
  • 23
    McDonagh JE, Southwood TR, Shaw KL, and the British Society of Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology. Growing up and moving on in Rheumatology: disease knowledge in a multicentre cohort of adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis [abstract]. Arch Dis Child 2005; 90 Suppl II: G123.
  • 24
    Bryman A, Cramer D. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS for Windows: a guide for social scientists. London: Routledge; 1997.
  • 25
    Cohen L, Holliday M. Statistics for social scientists. London: Harper and Row; 1982.
  • 26
    Holman HR, Lorig K. Perceived self-efficacy in self-management of chronic disease. In: SchwarzerR, editor. Self-efficacy: thought control of action. London: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; 1992.
  • 27
    Barlow JH, Turner AP, Wright CC. A randomized controlled study of the Arthritis Self-Management Programme in the UK. Health Educ Res 2000; 15: 66580.
  • 28
    Barlow JH, Turner AP, Wright CC. Long-term outcomes of an arthritis self-management programme. Br J Rheumatol 1998; 37: 13159.
  • 29
    Lorig K, Holman H. Arthritis self-management studies: a twelve-year review. Health Educ Q 1993; 20: 1728.
  • 30
    Adam V, St-Pierre Y, Fautrel B, Clarke AE, Duffy CM, Penrod JR. What is the impact of adolescent arthritis and rheumatism? Evidence from a national sample of Canadians. J Rheumatol 2005; 32: 35461.
  • 31
    Meltzer H, Gatward R, Goodman R, Ford T. The mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain. 2nd ed. London: Office for National Statistics; 2000.
  • 32
    Fleming JE, Offord DR, Boyle MH. Prevalence of childhood and adolescent depression in the community: Ontario Child Health Study. Br J Psychiatry 1989; 155: 64754.
  • 33
    Packham JC, Hall MA, Pimm TJ. Long-term follow-up of 246 adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: predictive factors for mood and pain. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002; 41: 14449.
  • 34
    Palermo TM, Kiska R. Subjective sleep disturbances in adolescents with chronic pain: relationship to daily functioning and quality of life. J Pain 2005; 6: 2017.
  • 35
    Schanberg LE, Sandstrom MJ, Starr K, Gil KM, Lefebvre JC, Keefe FJ, et al. The relationship of daily mood and stressful events to symptoms in juvenile rheumatic disease. Arthritis Care Res 2000; 13: 3341.
  • 36
    Carskadon MA. Sleep difficulties in young people. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004; 158: 5978.
  • 37
    McDonagh JE. Growing up and moving on: transition from pediatric to adult care. Pediatr Transplant 2005; 9: 36472.
  • 38
    Shaw KL, Southwood TR, McDonagh JE, and the British Society of Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology. Growing up and moving on in rheumatology: transitional care and quality of life in a multicentre cohort of adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) [abstract]. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005; 44 Suppl 1: i92.
  • 39
    Sim J, Wright C. Research in health care: concepts, design and methods. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes; 2000.
  • 40
    Dashiff C. Data collection with adolescents. J Adv Nurs 2001; 33: 3439.
  • 41
    Foster HE, Marshall N, Myers A, Dunkley P, Griffiths ID. Outcome in adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a quality of life study. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 76775.
  • 42
    Packham JC, Hall MA. Long-term follow-up of 246 adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: social function, relationships and sexual activity. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002; 41: 14403.
  • 43
    Packham JC, Hall MA. Long-term follow-up of 246 adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: education and employment. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002; 41: 14369.
  • 44
    Packham JC, Hall MA. Long-term follow-up of 246 adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: functional outcome. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002; 41: 142835.
  • 45
    Blum RW, Garell D, Hodgman CH, Jorissen TW, Okinow NA, Orr DP, et al. Transition from child-centered to adult health-care systems for adolescents with chronic conditions: a position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. J Adolesc Health 1993; 14: 5706.