Background
Dizziness is one of the most frequent complaints in medical care; one that can negatively and significantly affect a patient’s well-being [
1]-[
3]. Measuring the impact of an illness is important, because it helps to identify those patients at risk for chronic symptoms and distress. One multi-faceted concept pertinent to measuring the impact of dizziness is the assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). HRQoL takes into account different components of the patient’s current life situation and is widely used to determine the impact of illness on an individual’s well-being [
4]. In patients with dizziness, HRQoL seems to be independent of other measurable characteristics of the dizziness, like the duration of symptoms and objective balance tests [
4]-[
8]. The self-perceived HRQoL of patients with dizziness is significantly impaired relative to that of the general population, regardless of the aetiology of dizziness [
4]-[
6],[
9]-[
12]. While dizziness is more common in women than men [
2],[
13], gender does not appear to influence the HRQoL of patients with dizziness [
4],[
14]. However, employment status and education are known to be associated with HRQoL [
15],[
16]. Factors like being in a stable relationship and living with someone are also generally associated with better HRQoL [
4],[
17],[
18].
While there seem to be good insights into the impact of dizziness on patient self-perceived HRQoL [
19], the burden of suffering from dizziness has not yet been investigated. One important facet of the overall burden of illness is the burden of suffering due to the illness [
20]. Burden of suffering is defined as ‘a state of severe distress associated with events that threaten the intactness of the person’ [
21]. It can be quickly and easily rated by patients themselves using a simple visual instrument called the
Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self- Measure (PRISM). [
22], which has been documented to reliably assess the burden of suffering in various disease states like orofacial pain, chronic urticaria, systemic lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, post-traumatic stress disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [
23]-[
28].
Since the patient’s self-perceived severity of illness and their perception of the burden of suffering, measured with the PRISM, have been found to be strongly correlated [
27],[
29],[
30], burden of suffering seems to be an important indicator of an individual’s well-being and the PRISM a reliable, feasible and useful outcome measure in the management of illness [
31].
Despite the importance of the burden of suffering, previous studies have rarely focused upon burden in patients with dizziness. Moreover, to our knowledge, how applicable the PRISM is in patients with dizziness remains non-investigated. Therefore, the current study aimed to investigate whether the self-administered PRISM can be used to assess the burden of suffering in patients with dizziness. In addition, we aimed to investigate which factors in these patients (e.g., sociodemographic) contribute to the burden of suffering, as measured with the PRISM. The underlying hypotheses were (1) that the PRISM score and perceived severity of dizziness are significantly correlated; and (2) that this relationship is robust, even when adjusted for other factors on multi-variate analysis. We also expected the PRISM to encompass different aspects of the dizziness experience, like perceived dizziness severity and level of emotional distress.
Discussion
The current study aimed to investigate how applicable the PRISM instrument is in patients with dizziness. The burden of suffering measured with the PRISM and patients’ self-perceived severity of dizziness were expected to be significantly associated. We also sought to differentiate between additional factors influencing the burden of suffering in these patients. As expected, a high burden of suffering (low SIS) was significantly associated with a high self-perceived severity of dizziness (high DHI). Furthermore, patients with a high burden of suffering (low SIS) reported more emotional distress (high HADS) and were more likely to report continuous dizziness than transient attacks.
Before discussing the implications of our results and their relationship to previously-reported findings, we feel it necessary to discuss our study’s limitations. First, burden of suffering does not necessarily imply anything about specific, helpful coping strategies that an individual might use to deal with his or her disease. Suffering among patients with dizziness still needs to be investigated in the context of coping to identify those strategies most helpful at reducing the burden of suffering. Other individual influences, like alexithymia, should be investigated as well [
14]. Furthermore, our study provided only limited information about the underlying cause of dizziness, because it included no objective tests or diagnostic procedures. It is possible that different underlying causes affect SIS scores and their associations with other variables.
It has previously been shown that affective distress potentially influences the burden of an illness and contributes to the multi-factorial construct of the PRISM [
22]. In our sample, a high burden of suffering, as reflected by a low SIS, was directly correlated with self-perceived severity of dizziness (DHI). On regression analysis approximately thirty-four percent of SIS variance was explained by the severity of dizziness. Furthermore, our results demonstrated a significant correlation between emotional distress and SIS. For both, the DHI total score and DHI sub-score regression analysis, the HADS rating accounted for an additional two percent of SIS variance.
The association between a subjective measure of illness (DHI) and SIS is consistent with other studies which found the PRISM to reflect the subjective features of illness (e.g., pain, depression, grief) [
1],[
28]. However, only a small number of previous studies [
24],[
25],[
28],[
40] have examined whether the PRISM construct and the subjective construct of the illness are identical, or related but not identical. While certain other studies have supported our finding of a multi-factorial construct of the PRISM, reflected by the association between SIS and HADS score on bivariate analysis [
26]-[
28], another study identified no such association on multivariate analysis [
24]. However, this latter study did not include HADS as an overall measure of emotional distress, but used sub scores for depressive and anxiety symptoms. As the HADS measures overall emotional distress [
50] and does not reliably differentiate between depressive and anxiety symptoms, we decided to use the scale as an overall measure of distress. Nevertheless, the additional variance explained by the HADS in the current study seems rather low. One potential explanation relates to the structure of the DHI and HADS, which both encompass aspects of emotional distress. This overlapping measurement of emotional distress might underestimate the role of the HADS. This view is supported by our DHI sub-score analyses, in which the emotional subscale of the DHI emerged as the strongest predictor. However, it seems that self-perceived severity of dizziness might fail to encompass the full nature of the burden of suffering in patients with dizziness. This assumption is further supported by the significant association between SIS and continuous dizziness on multivariate analysis.
The current results also suggest that the burden of suffering is not gender-specific in patients with dizziness, which is consistent with previous results that identified no significant gender differences in SIS [
42]. The burden of suffering also was not correlated with age in the current sample. However, one might expect to measure a higher burden of suffering in older patients, due to co-morbid conditions that occur more often in the elderly. The current results and results of one previous study [
24] do not confirm this expectation. To the contrary, perhaps due to greater life experiences, older patients might have learned how to cope better with various life stressors [
25],[
42]. Overall, socioeconomic variables played no crucial role in the burden of suffering in patients with dizziness, which strengthens previous impressions that the PRISM might be less influenced by socioeconomic and cultural factors than other subjective assessments [
29].
Nevertheless, our data illustrated, that PRISM-rated suffering is likely to yield a more comprehensive picture of the individual’s illness experience than the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI). Thus, the PRISM seems to assess a multi-factorial construct of suffering in patients with dizziness. This finding is consistent with both our
a priori expectations and previously-published studies on PRISM [
26]. Taken together, our study suggests that suffering, as measured with the PRISM, is a significant multi-factorial component of well-being that contributes to and, thus, aids in the understanding of the burden of dizziness.
In our study, the PRISM was used as a self-report instrument with no observer guidance. Nevertheless, meaningful results that supported our hypotheses were obtained. In addition, the PRISM reliably distinguished between patients with mild versus severe dizziness. As such, the PRISM could enable clinicians to assess the severity of dizziness symptoms easily, and help them to identify patients at risk for chronic distress relating to their dizziness, who might warrant further consultations and psychological support. Therefore, we suggest a timesaving and economical stepwise assessment of patients with dizziness. This stepwise approach could include the PRISM as an initial screening instrument. Should this screening suggest a high burden of suffering, further examination of symptom severity and distress should be under-taken. Furthermore, the PRISM seems to reflect a patient’s appraisal of the intrusiveness and controllability of their symptoms [
26]. This might point to the PRISM not only as a screening tool, but also as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment [
27].
Conclusions
The current study clarified some of the relevant contributors to the burden of suffering, and therefore provides a more complete picture of illness burden in patients with dizziness. Our results also show that the PRISM tool captures certain aspects of the illness experience, like emotional distress and self-perceived severity of dizziness. As such, we see the PRISM as a multi-factorial measure of burden of suffering in these patients that is relatively independent of sociodemographic and cultural influences. In addition, the PRISM seems to reliably distinguish between patients with less and more severe dizziness. Therefore, it could enable clinicians to identify vulnerable patients at risk for developing chronic symptoms and distress, thereby interfering with daily living. Whether the PRISM can be used to evaluate improvement or worsening of symptoms during treatment will require future studies.
Acknowledgment
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or non-profit sectors. Due to Swiss ethical standards, no further data can be accessed without individual ethics approval.
No outside parties had any role in the currently-reported study’s design or orchestration, including data collection and analysis, our decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no external funding for this study.
Competing interests
The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
SW initiated the collaborative project, designed data-collection tools, collected and monitored data collection for the whole trial, wrote the statistical analysis plan, cleaned and analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. She is the guarantor. AB monitored data collection, analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. HPM wrote the statistical analysis plan, analysed the data and revised the drafted paper. DS collected data, monitored data collection, and revised the draft paper. SH collected data, monitored data collection, and revised the drafted paper. SB designed data collection tools and revised the drafted paper. MR initiated the collaborative project, monitored data collection and drafted and revised the submitted paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.