Literature DB >> 10472158

Do we know what global ratings of health-related quality of life measure?

B Mozes1, Y Maor, A Shmueli.   

Abstract

Information is lacking about the public's perception of the term health-related quality of life (HRQL). Specifically, what are the relations between the domains included in the operational definition of HRQL tools and global health ratings. The purpose of this analysis was to identify factors associated with global rating of HRQL. We conducted a survey of a representative sample of 2,030 Israeli adults, aged 45-75 years. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify associations between the dependent variable, the global rating, and socio-economic details, presence of disease states, and each of the domains of the SF-36. The results demonstrate that the model explains only 52% of the variance of the global rating score. The general health domain of the SF-36 explains the vast majority of the variance, 38.5%. Another important explanatory variable was physical functioning domain, which explains 7.0% of the variance and to a lesser extent vitality. The other domains of the SF-36, socio-economic details and presence of disease states contribute only small percentages to the total explained variance of the global ratings of HRQL. It seems that there is a considerable difference between the operational definition of the research community of HRQL and the public perception of this term.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10472158     DOI: 10.1023/a:1008807419733

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  16 in total

1.  Self-assessed health among Norwegian adults.

Authors:  T Moum
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Quality of life, health status, and clinical research.

Authors:  M Bergner
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Health perceptions and survival: do global evaluations of health status really predict mortality?

Authors:  E L Idler; S Kasl
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1991-03

4.  Single-item vs multiple-item measures of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  K A Cunny; M Perri
Journal:  Psychol Rep       Date:  1991-08

5.  Validation of the 36-item short-form Health Survey (Hebrew version) in the adult population of Israel.

Authors:  N Lewin-Epstein; T Sagiv-Schifter; E L Shabtai; A Shmueli
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 6.  Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G W Torrance
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

7.  State of science 1986: quality of life and functional status as target variables for research.

Authors:  W O Spitzer
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

8.  What do global self-rated health items measure?

Authors:  N M Krause; G M Jay
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; J F Lu; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; A E Raczek
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  9 in total

1.  Adjusting distributions of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Jian Sun
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Assessing measurement properties of two single-item general health measures.

Authors:  Karen B DeSalvo; William P Fisher; Ky Tran; Nicole Bloser; William Merrill; John Peabody
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Validation and calibration of the SF-36 health transition question against an external criterion of clinical change in health status.

Authors:  Stephanie A Knox; Madeleine T King
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-03-28       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Validity of patient-reported health-related quality of life global ratings of change using structural equation modeling.

Authors:  Stacie M Metz; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Ajit N Babu; Kurt Kroenke; William M Tierney; Fredric D Wolinsky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-06-06       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  A comparison of traditional and Rasch cut points for assessing clinically important change in health-related quality of life among patients with asthma.

Authors:  Stacie M Metz; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Ajit N Babu; Kurt Kroenke; William M Tierney; Fredric D Wolinsky
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-10-12       Impact factor: 3.440

6.  Health-related quality of life in French adolescents and adults: norms for the DUKE Health Profile.

Authors:  Cédric Baumann; Marie-Line Erpelding; Christine Perret-Guillaume; Arnaud Gautier; Stéphanie Régat; Jean-François Collin; Francis Guillemin; Serge Briançon
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-05-27       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  Quality of Life in European Older Adults of SHARE Wave 7: Comparing the Old and the Oldest-Old.

Authors:  Amparo Oliver; Trinidad Sentandreu-Mañó; José M Tomás; Irene Fernández; Patricia Sancho
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-06-27       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  The minimal perceived change: a formal model of the responder definition according to the patient's meaning of change for patient-reported outcome data analysis and interpretation.

Authors:  Antoine Vanier; Véronique Sébille; Myriam Blanchin; Jean-Benoit Hardouin
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Correspondence between EQ-5D health state classifications and EQ VAS scores.

Authors:  David K Whynes
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2008-11-07       Impact factor: 3.186

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.