Endocrine Abstracts

Introduction: In 2005, an explorative study was undertaken on behalf of the Pituitary Foundation (PF) to assess the psychosocial impact of living with a pituitary condition. The study found high levels of psychosocial distress among patients resulting in reduced quality of life (QoL). Improving QoL is central to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on improving outcomes for pituitary patients. The aim of this study was to utilise the same measures of psychosocial distress as in the 2005 PF study with patients attending the regional neurological centre to inform local services and improve knowledge about the patient group.

Method: All participants (n = 30; age range: 21–86, average age 61; 50% female), had attended the regional neurological centre (RNC) between Sept 2009 & December 2010. 38 questionnaire packs were distributed by post (87% response rate) comprising standardised measures of anxiety and depression (HADS); quality of life (WHOQoL-Bref); and social anxiety & social avoidance as a result of appearance (DAS-24).

Results: Statistical comparisons of calculated means on psychometric measures between the RNC and 2005 PF study groups revealed significant differences. The RNC group were reporting significantly less depression (HADS; P<0.001); and significantly less social anxiety (DAS-24; P<0.001). They also reported significantly better quality of life (WHOQoL-Bref physical domain, P<0.001; psychological domain, P<0.013). However, utilisation of clinical cut-offs on the HADS & WHOQoL for the RNC group revealed 35% with clinical levels of anxiety; 21% with clinical levels of depression and 67% experiencing reduced quality of life.

Conclusions: These data suggest that the RNC group have generally low levels of psychosocial distress. However, a focus on calculated mean scores will result in missing the raised levels of psychosocial distress on some measures for some participants - in the RNC group this was in relation to anxiety, depression and some aspects of QoL.

Declaration of interest: There is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.

Funding: No specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.