Literature DB >> 3175710

A comparison of two survey measures of health status.

R Leavey1, D Wilkin.   

Abstract

Health service planning requires information on levels of health and illness in the population. Surveys, such as the British General Household Survey (GHS) rely on self-reports of health, illness and restriction, but interpretation of results is problematic. Multi-item measures such as the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) tap different aspects of health and allow respondents less freedom to define health and illness. In a survey of 1862 adults, health questions from the GHS and the NHP were used, and the results compared. Responses to GHS questions were associated with NHP scores, but the strength of the associations between the four GHS questions and the six NHP items varied considerably. Reporting a recent restriction was only weakly associated with NHP scores. Associations between GHS questions and NHP scores were weakest for the NHP items measuring emotional reactions, sleep and feelings of social isolation. Reporting good health or no illness in response to GHS questions was no guarantee that respondents experienced no health problems. Those who use health data from the GHS, NHP or similar surveys should look closely at whether such data provide appropriate information for their purposes.

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3175710     DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90131-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  9 in total

1.  Perceived health in a population based sample of victims of the 1956 polio epidemic in the Netherlands.

Authors:  F Nollet; B Ivanyi; A Beelen; R J De Haan; G J Lankhorst; M De Visser
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 10.154

Review 2.  A review of the progress towards developing health-related quality-of-life instruments for international clinical studies and outcomes research.

Authors:  R T Anderson; N K Aaronson; M Bullinger; W L McBee
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Weight change, perceived health status and mortality in middle-aged British men.

Authors:  G Wannamethee; A G Shaper
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 4.  Evaluation of quality of life for diverse patient populations.

Authors:  K R Yabroff; B P Linas; K Schulman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: translation and preliminary validity.

Authors:  J Alonso; J M Anto; C Moreno
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  The Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: a review of adaptation and instrument characteristics.

Authors:  J Alonso; L Prieto; J M Antó
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?

Authors:  C A McHorney; A R Tarlov
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Individual morbidity and neighbourhood deprivation in a non-metropolitan area.

Authors:  E G Jessop
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Self-rated health and cardiovascular disease incidence: results from a longitudinal population-based cohort in Norfolk, UK.

Authors:  Rianne M van der Linde; Nahal Mavaddat; Robert Luben; Carol Brayne; Rebecca K Simmons; Kay Tee Khaw; Ann Louise Kinmonth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.