BACKGROUND: Health utility values permit cost utility analysis in workplace health promotion; however, utility measures of working populations have not been validated. AIM: To investigate construct validity of SF-6D health utility in a public service workforce. METHODS: SF-12v2 Health Survey was administered to 3,408 randomly selected public service employees in Australia in 2010. SF-12 scores were converted to SF-6D health utility values. Associations and correlates of SF-6D with health, socio-demographic and work characteristics [comorbidities, body mass index (BMI), Kessler-10 psychological distress (K10), education, salary, effort-reward imbalance (ERI), absenteeism] were explored. Ceiling effects were analysed. Nationally representative employee SF-6D values from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey (n = 11,234) were compared. All analyses were stratified by sex. RESULTS: Mean (SE) age was 45.7 (0.35) males; 44.5 (0.22) females. Females represented 72 % of the sample. Mean (SE) health utility 0.792 (0.004); 0.771 (0.003) was higher in males. SF-6D demonstrated both a significant inverse association (p < 0.01) and negative correlations (female; male) with K10 (r = -0.63; r = -0.66), comorbidity count (r = -0.40; r = -0.33), ERI (r = -0.37; r = -0.34) and absenteeism (p < 0.005, r = -0.25; r = -0.21). Mean (SE) SF-6D in HILDA was 0.792 (0.002); 0.775 (0.003) males; females. Correlates and associations in all samples were similar. The general employed demonstrated a significant inverse association with age and positive association with salary. SF-6D was independent of BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress, comorbidity, effort-reward imbalance and absenteeism are negatively associated with employee health. SF-6D is a valid measure of perceived health states in working populations.
BACKGROUND: Health utility values permit cost utility analysis in workplace health promotion; however, utility measures of working populations have not been validated. AIM: To investigate construct validity of SF-6D health utility in a public service workforce. METHODS: SF-12v2 Health Survey was administered to 3,408 randomly selected public service employees in Australia in 2010. SF-12 scores were converted to SF-6D health utility values. Associations and correlates of SF-6D with health, socio-demographic and work characteristics [comorbidities, body mass index (BMI), Kessler-10 psychological distress (K10), education, salary, effort-reward imbalance (ERI), absenteeism] were explored. Ceiling effects were analysed. Nationally representative employee SF-6D values from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey (n = 11,234) were compared. All analyses were stratified by sex. RESULTS: Mean (SE) age was 45.7 (0.35) males; 44.5 (0.22) females. Females represented 72 % of the sample. Mean (SE) health utility 0.792 (0.004); 0.771 (0.003) was higher in males. SF-6D demonstrated both a significant inverse association (p < 0.01) and negative correlations (female; male) with K10 (r = -0.63; r = -0.66), comorbidity count (r = -0.40; r = -0.33), ERI (r = -0.37; r = -0.34) and absenteeism (p < 0.005, r = -0.25; r = -0.21). Mean (SE) SF-6D in HILDA was 0.792 (0.002); 0.775 (0.003) males; females. Correlates and associations in all samples were similar. The general employed demonstrated a significant inverse association with age and positive association with salary. SF-6D was independent of BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress, comorbidity, effort-reward imbalance and absenteeism are negatively associated with employee health. SF-6D is a valid measure of perceived health states in working populations.
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Daniel E Furst; Weng Kee Wong; Joel Tsevat; Philip J Clements; Grace S Park; Arnold E Postlethwaite; Mansoor Ahmed; Shaari Ginsburg; Ron D Hays Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-04-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Garry R Barton; Tracey H Sach; Anthony J Avery; Claire Jenkinson; Michael Doherty; David K Whynes; Kenneth R Muir Journal: Health Econ Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Dennis G Fryback; Nancy Cross Dunham; Mari Palta; Janel Hanmer; Jennifer Buechner; Dasha Cherepanov; Shani A Herrington; Ron D Hays; Robert M Kaplan; Theodore G Ganiats; David Feeny; Paul Kind Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Rosemary R C McEachan; Rebecca J Lawton; Cath Jackson; Mark Conner; David M Meads; Robert M West Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2011-04-11 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Julie A Campbell; Martin Hensher; Amanda Neil; Alison Venn; Petr Otahal; Stephen Wilkinson; Andrew J Palmer Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2018-12
Authors: Admassu N Lamu; Lars Björkman; Harald J Hamre; Terje Alræk; Frauke Musial; Bjarne Robberstad Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-04-17 Impact factor: 3.186