| Literature DB >> 28420153 |
Manuel B Huber1, Julia Felix2, Martin Vogelmann3, Reiner Leidl4,5.
Abstract
The EQ-5D-5L is a widely used generic instrument to measure health-related quality of life. This study evaluates health perception in a representative sample of the general German population from 2015. To compare results over time, a component analysis technique was used that separates changes in the description and valuation of health states. The whole sample and also subgroups, stratified by sociodemographic parameters as well as disease affliction, were analyzed. In total, 2040 questionnaires (48.4% male, mean age 47.3 year) were included. The dimension with the lowest number of reported problems was self-care (93.0% without problems), and the dimension with the highest proportion of impairment was pain/discomfort (71.2% without problems). Some 64.3% of the study population were identified as problem-free. The visual analog scale (VAS) mean for all participants was 85.1. Low education was connected with significantly lower VAS scores, but the effect was small. Depression, heart disease, and diabetes had a strong significant negative effect on reported VAS means. Results were slightly better than those in a similar 2012 survey; the most important driver was the increase in the share of the study population that reported to be problem-free. In international comparisons, health perception of the general German population is relatively high and, compared with previous German studies, fairly stable over recent years. Elderly and sick people continue to report significant reductions in perceived health states.Entities:
Keywords: 2015; EQ-5D-5L; Germany; health-related quality of life; population survey
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28420153 PMCID: PMC5409627 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14040426
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Sample characteristics.
| Characteristics | n | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| male | 987 | 48.38 | |
| female | 1053 | 51.62 | |
| total: 47.32 (±18.17) | |||
| males: 46.77 (±18.08) | |||
| females: 47.84 (±18.24) | |||
| <19 | 151 | 7.40 | |
| 20–29 | 272 | 13.33 | |
| 30–39 | 305 | 14.95 | |
| 40–49 | 395 | 19.36 | |
| 50–59 | 327 | 16.03 | |
| 60–69 | 288 | 14.12 | |
| 70–79 | 249 | 12.21 | |
| 80+ | 53 | 2.60 | |
| low | 822 | 40.29 | |
| medium | 785 | 38.48 | |
| high | 433 | 21.23 | |
| full-time | 1012 | 49.61 | |
| part-time | 253 | 12.40 | |
| leave (parental leave, military/civil service) | 12 | 0.59 | |
| unemployed | 53 | 2.60 | |
| pension | 452 | 22.16 | |
| housewife | 70 | 3.43 | |
| undergoing training | 96 | 4.71 | |
| no information | 92 | 4.51 |
* Low education: in education, high school with/without apprenticeship; medium education: middle school; high education: grammar school with/without university attendance.
Figure 1VAS means stratified by age group and sex.
Figure 2VAS means stratified by age group and health status. Note: Problem-free: descriptive score “11111”; All: VAS means of the entire study population; At least one problem: sample with at least one problem in at least one dimension.
Figure 3Sample share stratified by age group and health status.
Figure 4Boxplots for the distribution of VAS means by educational background.
Linear model results, VAS as dependent variable.
| Coefficient | Estimator | SE | Pr (>|t|) |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 107.15 | 1.09 | *** |
| Sex (female) | –1.56 | 0.54 | ** |
| Age | –0.33 | 0.02 | *** |
| Low education | –2.27 | 0.73 | ** |
| Medium education | 0.50 | 0.71 | |
| High education | Reference | ||
| Depression | –17.57 | 2.55 | *** |
| Hypertension | –7.48 | 1.13 | *** |
| Migraine | –5.62 | 2.21 | * |
| Diabetes | –12.45 | 1.56 | *** |
| Musculoskeletal disorders | –8.95 | 1.09 | *** |
| Thyroid disease | –2.78 | 2.14 | |
| Heart disease | –14.51 | 1.92 | *** |
| Gastrointestinal diseases | –4.20 | 2.02 | * |
| Rheumatism | –8.76 | 2.39 | *** |
| Arthrosis | –9.90 | 1.95 | *** |
SE: Standard error; Level of significance: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 5Component analysis based on Kitagawa (1955) [30]. Note: Most significant health states are labelled. Percent refers to the mean share of participants in the respective health state across both years.