Article Text

PDF
J25 Performance Of The 36-item And 12-item Whodas 2.0 In Prodromal Huntington Disease
  1. J Kim1,
  2. JD Long1,2,
  3. JA Mills1,
  4. N Downing3,
  5. JK Williams3,
  6. J Paulsen1,4,5 and the PREDICT-HD Investigators and Coordinators of the Huntington Study Group
  1. 1Department of Psychiatry, Carver College of Medicine, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
  2. 2Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
  3. 3College of Nursing, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
  4. 4Department of Neurology, Carver College of Medicine, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
  5. 5Department of Psychology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

Abstract

Background The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5) recommends the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 for routine clinical use. We tested the utility of the 36-item and 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in prodromal Huntington disease.

Aims The aims of the current study are (1) to test disease progression group differences in baseline values and longitudinal change in a separate analysis of participant and companion ratings on the 36-item and 12-item WHODAS 2.0; (2) to compare longitudinal participant and companion ratings on the 36-item and 12-item WHODAS 2.0, and; (3) to compare the 36-item and 12-item WHODAS 2.0 with the Total Functional Capacity (TFC) score, in terms of detecting baseline and longitudinal differences.

Methods Using data from 726 participants and 630 companions over a 3-year follow-up, linear mixed regression models were fitted and compared by Akaike’s information criterion. Participants were classified into four groups based on their gene status and baseline disease progression (control, low, medium, and high progression).

Results For both the 36-item and 12-item WHODAS, participants and companions in the high group reported significantly worse functioning at baseline compared to controls. For longitudinal changes, companions but not participants in the medium and high groups reported significantly worse functional decline over time compared to controls. Participant and companion longitudinal trajectories showed divergence in the high group, suggesting reduced validity of self-report. The 12-item WHODAS detected longitudinal change better than the 36-item version and the TFC in the medium group.

Conclusions Both the 36-item and 12-item WHODAS 2.0 can detect baseline and longitudinal differences in prodromal HD, and may be useful in HD clinical trials. Companions may provide more accurate data as the disease progresses.

KeyWords
  • WHODAS
  • DSM-5
  • TFC

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.