Literature DB >> 10231074

Subjective health status and health values in the general population.

A Shmueli1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between rating-scale evaluation of health-related quality of life ("health value") and two subjective evaluations of health: the SF-36 profile and the five-category perception of general health (excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor).
METHODS: This relationship was explored by linear and nonlinear regression analysis of data obtained through face-to-face interviews with a sample of 2,030 persons aged 45-75 years representing the Israeli Jewish urban population in that age group.
RESULTS: The main outcome is a mapping assigning health values to the subjective health-status scores, e.g., "good" general health is equivalent to a health value of 76-81, depending on the functional form of the relation. "Poor" health is equivalent to a value of 45-61. The R2 is about 0.3. While the eight scales of the SF-36 were found to be linearly related to health value (R2=0.51), the two summary measures-physical component scale (PCS) and mental component scale (MCS)-were not. The scales measuring general health, vitality, and physical functioning were the main determinants of health value, while the role-performance scales were insignificant. The PCS had a larger effect than the MCS. DISCUSSION: These relationships provide deeper insight into the structure and meaning of the two health-status measures in the general population. They also place earlier determinations of these relationships among sick persons in a broader context and raise several further questions regarding the relationship between health values and health status.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10231074     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  16 in total

1.  Reporting heterogeneity in the measurement of health and health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Amir Shmueli
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health status.

Authors:  Kristy Sanderson; Gavin Andrews; Justine Corry; Helen Lapsley
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Religious differences in self-rated health among US Jews: findings from five urban population surveys.

Authors:  Jeff Levin
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2015-04

5.  Cost Effectiveness of Operative Versus Non-Operative Treatment of Geriatric Type-II Odontoid Fracture.

Authors:  Daniel R Barlow; Brendan T Higgins; Elissa M Ozanne; Anna N A Tosteson; Adam M Pearson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the neck disability index and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain.

Authors:  Leah Y Carreon; Paul A Anderson; Christine M McDonough; Mladen Djurasovic; Steven D Glassman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Quality-of-life loss of people admitted to burn centers, United States.

Authors:  Ted Miller; Soma Bhattacharya; William Zamula; Dennis Lezotte; Karen Kowalske; David Herndon; James Fauerbach; Loren Engrav
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-12-08       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Converting the SF-12 into the EQ-5D: an empirical comparison of methodologies.

Authors:  Ling-Hsiang Chuang; Paul Kind
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the Oswestry disability index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain.

Authors:  Leah Y Carreon; Steven D Glassman; Christine M McDonough; Raja Rampersaud; Sigurd Berven; Michael Shainline
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure.

Authors:  Joan Webster; Zhenmi Liu; Gill Norman; Jo C Dumville; Laura Chiverton; Paul Scuffham; Monica Stankiewicz; Wendy P Chaboyer
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-03-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.