Literature DB >> 31321671

A comparison of self-rated health using EQ-5D VAS in the United States in 2002 and 2017.

Ashley S Cha1, Ernest H Law1, James W Shaw1,2, A Simon Pickard3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare self-rated health among the United States general population in 2002 and 2017.
METHODS: Secondary data were analyzed from two EQ-5D valuation studies conducted in 2002 and 2017. Both studies included the EQ-5D-3L self-classifier and visual analog scale (VAS), where health is rated from 0 (worst imaginable health) to 100 (best imaginable health). VAS scores were compared between time points using regression models, adjusting for sociodemographic factors (Model 1), plus illness (Model 2), and health problems according to the EQ-5D classifier (Model 3).
RESULTS: Mean VAS scores in 2002 [84.4 (SD = 16.1)] were not different from 2017 [84.6 (SD = 14.5)] (p = 0.63), nor different after adjusting for demographics (Model 1) or illness (Model 2). However, 2017 VAS mean scores were significantly higher than 2002 [2.2 (95% CI 1.36-3.10)] upon adjusting for the presence of dimension-specific health problems.
CONCLUSIONS: Self-rated health of the general US adult population in 2017 was similar to 2002, but after adjusting for health problems, scores were slightly higher in 2017. Sociodemographic shifts in age and education explain some of the differences in scores, and by removing health and sociodemographic factors, we found the VAS reveals self-rated health is slightly better in 2017 than 2002.

Keywords:  EQ-5D-3L; Health-related quality of life; Self-rated health; VAS; Valuation

Year:  2019        PMID: 31321671     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02249-y

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


  13 in total

1.  The Affordable Care Act at 5 Years.

Authors:  David Blumenthal; Melinda Abrams; Rachel Nuzum
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model.

Authors:  James W Shaw; Jeffrey A Johnson; Stephen Joel Coons
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Is it time to update societal value sets for preference-based measures of health?

Authors:  A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Parallel Valuation: A Direct Comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L Societal Value Sets.

Authors:  Ernest H Law; A Simon Pickard; Feng Xie; Surrey M Walton; Todd A Lee; Alan Schwartz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Measuring global health: motivation and evolution of the Global Burden of Disease Study.

Authors:  Christopher J L Murray; Alan D Lopez
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-09-16       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Measuring population health outcomes.

Authors:  R Gibson Parrish
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 2.830

7.  Patient Experience-based Value Sets: Are They Stable?

Authors:  A Simon Pickard; Yu-Ting Hung; Fang-Ju Lin; Todd A Lee
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare?

Authors:  Yan Feng; Nancy Devlin; Mike Herdman
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 3.186

9.  Valuing health-related quality of life: systematic variation in health perception.

Authors:  Manuel Huber; Martin Vogelmann; Reiner Leidl
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 10.  Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010.

Authors:  Torbjørn Wisløff; Gunhild Hagen; Vida Hamidi; Espen Movik; Marianne Klemp; Jan Abel Olsen
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.981

View more
  2 in total

1.  Health inequities as measured by the EQ-5D-5L during COVID-19: Results from New York in healthy and diseased persons.

Authors:  Erica I Lubetkin; Di Long; Juanita A Haagsma; Mathieu F Janssen; Gouke J Bonsel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  Equine-Assisted Intervention to Improve Perceived Value of Everyday Occupations and Quality of Life in People with Lifelong Neurological Disorders: A Prospective Controlled Study.

Authors:  Anna María Pálsdóttir; Marie Gudmundsson; Patrik Grahn
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 3.390

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.