OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the disability weights for the Korean Burden of Disease study, and to compare them with those adopted in the Australian study to examine the validity and describe the distinctive features. METHODS: The standardized valuation protocol was developed from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study and the Dutch Disability Weights study. Disability weights were measured for 123 diseases of the Korean version of Disease Classification by three panels of 10 medical doctors each. Then, overall distribution, correlation coefficients, difference by each disease, and mean of differences by disease group were analyzed for comparison of disability weights between the Korean and Australian studies. RESULTS: Korean disability weights ranged from 0.037 to 0.927. While the rank correlation coefficient was moderate to high (rs=0.68), Korean disability weights were higher than the corresponding Australian ones in 79.7% of the 118 diseases. Of these, war, leprosy, and most injuries showed the biggest differences. On the contrary, many infectious and parasitic diseases comprised the greater part of diseases of which Korean disability weights were lower. The mean of the differences was the highest in injuries of GBD disease groups, and in cardiovascular disease, injuries, and malignant neoplasm of the Korean disease category. CONCLUSIONS: Korean disability weights were found to be valid on the basis of overall distribution pattern and correlation, and are expected to be used as basic data for broadening the scope of burden of disease study. However, some distinctive features still remain to be explored in following studies.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the disability weights for the Korean Burden of Disease study, and to compare them with those adopted in the Australian study to examine the validity and describe the distinctive features. METHODS: The standardized valuation protocol was developed from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study and the Dutch Disability Weights study. Disability weights were measured for 123 diseases of the Korean version of Disease Classification by three panels of 10 medical doctors each. Then, overall distribution, correlation coefficients, difference by each disease, and mean of differences by disease group were analyzed for comparison of disability weights between the Korean and Australian studies. RESULTS: Korean disability weights ranged from 0.037 to 0.927. While the rank correlation coefficient was moderate to high (rs=0.68), Korean disability weights were higher than the corresponding Australian ones in 79.7% of the 118 diseases. Of these, war, leprosy, and most injuries showed the biggest differences. On the contrary, many infectious and parasitic diseases comprised the greater part of diseases of which Korean disability weights were lower. The mean of the differences was the highest in injuries of GBD disease groups, and in cardiovascular disease, injuries, and malignant neoplasm of the Korean disease category. CONCLUSIONS: Korean disability weights were found to be valid on the basis of overall distribution pattern and correlation, and are expected to be used as basic data for broadening the scope of burden of disease study. However, some distinctive features still remain to be explored in following studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Korea; cost of illness; cross-cultural comparison; health status