In total, 154 participants (99 males, 55 females) were included in the analysis. Characteristics of the participants as shown in Table 1. To evaluate the null hypothesis (i.e. patients are a single, homogenous, monolithic group) we tested an initial model with two unobserved subgroups compared to a single class model followed by sequential increases in classes (i.e. 3 then four) to identify the best fit model. Based on the Ram criteria in general (i.e. Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test, Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test), Bayesian information criteria (BIC = 6656.46) and parametric bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (p = 0.03) in particular, the three class solution provided more information compared with two and four class solutions. Increasing the number of classes to four failed to reach statistical significance and was abandoned in favor of the model with three subgroups.
Table 1
Participant characteristics (n = 154)
|
males (n = 99)
|
females (n = 55)
|
total (n = 154)
|
sociodemographics
|
|
|
|
age (yrs.)
mean ± SD (range)
|
36.8 ± 10.8
(19–65)
|
35.2 ± 9.7
(18–68)
|
36.2 ± 10.5
(18–68)
|
education (n, %)
high school
university
post-graduate
not reported
|
33
35
31
0
|
10
16
29
1
|
43 (28%)
51 (33%)
60 (39%)
1 (< 1%)
|
relationship status (n, %)
never been in a relationship
single
dating/in a relationship
married
divorced
|
23
24
15
36
1
|
4
9
14
21
7
|
27 (18%)
33 (21%)
29 (19%)
57 (37%)
8 (5%)
|
clinical information
|
|
|
|
age at diagnosis (yrs.)
mean ± SD (range)
|
17.7 ± 5.9
(neonatal − 32)
|
20.7 ± 7.4
(10–48)
|
18.8 ± 6.6
(neonatal − 48)
|
seen at AMC (n, %)
|
50
|
34
|
84 (55%)
|
genetic counseling ever (n, %)
|
12
|
11
|
33 (21%)
|
genetic testing ever (n, %)
|
42
|
25
|
67 (44%)
|
patient-reported outcomes
|
|
|
|
IPQR consequences
(dimension range: 5–30)
|
21.2 ± 4.0
|
20.0 ± 5.1
|
20.8 ± 4.5
(6–30)
|
IPQR emotional representations
dimension range: 5–30)
|
19.3 ± 5.7
|
17.8 ± 6.2
|
18.8 ± 5.9
(6–30)
|
IPQR illness coherence
(dimension range: 5–25)
|
18.2 ± 4.4
|
16.4 ± 4.7
|
17.6 ± 4.6
(5–25)
|
Zung SDS
(dimension range: 20–80)
|
43.5 ± 12.0
|
41.6 ± 11.4
|
42.8 ± 11.8
(20–70)
|
AMC: academic medical center; IPQR: Illness Perception Questionairre Revised; SDS: self-rating depression scale |
Accordingly, latent class analysis revealed the model with three subgroups demonstrated the best fit. The 154 subjects were classified as being a member of class I (n = 84 [54.5%]), class II (n = 41 [26.6%]) or Class III (n = 29 [18.8%]). We used maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors in an iterative process to determine parameters within the three classes and to generate probabilities of each participant belonging to each class. The classification probabilities for the most likely latent class membership (i.e. posterior probabilities) were acceptable (class I = 0.836, II = 0.906, III = 0.937, entropy = 0.80). Radar graphs of the three distinct profiles are shown in Fig. 2. Mean values with 95% confidence intervals for each continuous variable are shown in Table 2. In terms of the categorical variable education, high school education had a weak, negatively association with Class I membership (χ2= -0.575, p = 0.024) while having post-graduate education was strongly associated (χ2 = 4.392, p < 0.001). Having a college/university education was positively associated with membership in Class III (χ2 = 1.869, p = 0.028). Having been seen at a specialty/academic medical center was not significantly associated with membership in any of the classes.
Table 2
Mean values for continuous variables by class
class
|
age (yrs.) (range: 18–68)
|
age at Dx (yrs.) (range: NN-48)
|
Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised
|
Zung SDS (range: 20–80)
|
consequences (range: 5–30)
|
emotional representations
(range: 5–30)
|
illness coherence (range: 5–25)
|
F = 36.78
p < 0.001
|
F = 3.17
p = 0.045
|
F = 52.26
p < 0.001
|
F = 112.5
p < 0.001
|
F = 38.96
p < 0.001
|
F = 51.35
p < 0.001
|
I
(n = 84)
|
31.7 ± 8.2
(29.9–33.5)
|
19.2 ± 16.7
(17.8–20.7)
|
22.9 ± 3.5
(22.1–23.7)
|
22.7 ± 3.7
(21.9–23.5)
|
15.2 ± 4.0
(14.3–16.0)
|
49.6 ± 9.5
(47.6–51.7)
|
II
(n = 41)
|
37.0 ± 7.6 †
(34.6–39.4)
|
18.6 ± 4.9
(17.1–20.2)
|
16.2 ± 3.6 ‡
(15.0–17.3)
|
12.1 ± 3.7 ‡
(10.9–13.2)
|
19.6 ± 3.7 ‡
(18.4–20.7)
|
32.8 ± 9.9 ‡
(29.7–35.9)
|
III
(n = 29)
|
47.0 ± 9.6 ‡
(43.4–50.6)
|
16.0 ± 5.3 *
(13.9–18.0)
|
21.6 ± 3.1 ‡
(20.4–22.8)
|
16.9 ± 4.0 ‡
(15.4–18.5)
|
21.4 ± 2.6 ‡
(20.4–22.4)
|
32.7 ± 9.0 ‡
(32.7–39.5)
|
Among class differences depicted using F and p values; data are shown as mean ± SD (95% confidence interval); Dx: diagnosis; NN: neonatal; SDS: self-rating depression scale; ANOVA with Sheffe post hoc test * p < 0.05 vs. Class I, † p < 0.005 vs. class I, ‡ p < 0.001 vs. class I |
Compared to other classes, class I was diagnosed significantly later (Sheffe post hoc p < 0.05) and had significantly more IPQ-R consequences, greater IPQ-R emotional impact, and lower IPQ-R illness coherence (i.e. how one makes sense of their disease) (all p < 0.001) (Table 2). Class I also exhibited significantly higher Zung SDS scores (measuring depressive symptoms) than either of the other subgroups (Sheffe post hoc p < 0.001). Class II and III exhibit SDS scores in the normal reference range (i.e. 20–39) yet class I SDS scores (95% CI: 47.6–51.7) fell squarely in the rage of moderate depressive symptoms (SDS range: 48–55) akin to dysthymia or depression typically seen in the ambulatory setting [24]. These empirical data point to psychosocial sequelae associated with later diagnosis. As an exploratory step, we performed linear regression to identify predictors of older age at diagnosis among the patient reported outcome (i.e. IPQR consequences, IPQR emotional representations, IPQR illness coherence, Zung SDS). With the stepwise model selection procedures, only illness coherence was retained. Thus, the multivariate linear regression model is equivalent to a Pearson’s correlation. Illness coherence was negatively correlated with age at diagnosis (r=-0.192, p = 0.009), consistent with a small-to-medium effect size (i.e. 0.1–0.3). Thus, older age at diagnosis is associated with making less sense of the illness (CHH/KS).