Asthma-specific health-related quality of life of people in Great Britain: A national survey

Abstract

Background: Although the ultimate goal of asthma treatment is to improve asthma-specific Health-Related Quality-Of-Life (HRQOL), in the UK population this is insufficiently studied. National asthma-specific HRQOL data is needed to inform strategies to address this condition. Aims and objectives: To benchmark asthma-specific HRQOL in a national survey of adults with asthma, and explore differences in this measure within subsections of the population. Methods: We analysed answers to the Marks Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-M) from a representative sample of 658 adults with asthma. Respondents answered asthma-specific questions to assess control, previous hospital admissions, asthma attacks and an indicator of severity. Higher scores indicate poorer HRQOL (maximum = 60). The highest quintile formed a subgroup ‘Poor HRQOL’. Data were weighted to correct for any biases caused by differential non-response. Chi-square analyses were used to determine differences between good and poor quality of life and regression analyses performed to determine what factors are associated with poor HRQOL. Results: The response rate was 49%. AQLQ-M median (IQR) scores were 5 (2–13) for the total sample (poor HRQOL = 21, good HRQOL = 3). Significant differences between good and poor HRQOL were observed in smoking status, SES, employment status and co-morbidities, but no differences were found between age groups. Those with poorly controlled asthma were significantly more likely to have poor HRQOL, ≥1 breathing related hospital admission or ≥1 asthma attack. Conclusions: This article provides benchmarking data on asthma-specific HRQOL. Improved strategies are needed to target interventions towards people experiencing poor HRQOL.

Keywords:

• Asthma
• cross-sectional survey
• quality of life

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the respondents for giving their time to be interviewed.

Declaration of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests in relation to the work described and no conflicts of interest in relation to this article. JU, CL, EH, SW, and DP contributed to the conception of the article. The article was drafted by JU, EH, and SW. All authors contributed to the critical appraisal and revision of the article.

Funding

This study was financially supported by GlaxoSmithKline, Pharmacy2U and Boston Scientific.