Literature DB >> 4061712

A cross-cultural comparison of health status values.

D L Patrick, Y Sittampalam, S M Somerville, W B Carter, M Bergner.   

Abstract

The extent to which the values attached to health states are similar in different cultures or social groups is important for understanding health and illness behaviors and for developing standardized health status measures. A cross-cultural study was conducted to compare the health status values obtained in a United States population (Seattle, Washington) with those from another English-speaking culture (London, England) on the Sickness Impact Profile, a standardized measure composed of 136 items. London judges rated the severity of dysfunction described in each item on an equal interval scale using the same methods of scaling and analysis employed in the Seattle study. A regression of English mean item values on US mean values yielded a slope of 1.00 and an intercept of -0.07, indicating that judges gave strikingly similar ratings to most items. Agreement was higher at the more severe end of the dysfunction continuum than at the least severe end, a finding consistent with the notion that what constitutes health is more difficult to define than what constitutes illness. While a universal conception of dysfunction may exist in English-speaking societies, the social and cultural determinants of health status values deserve more systematic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4061712      PMCID: PMC1646442          DOI: 10.2105/ajph.75.12.1402

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  9 in total

1.  Validation of an interval scaling: the sickness impact profile.

Authors:  W B Carter; R A Bobbitt; M Bergner; B S Gilson
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  The sickness impact profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure.

Authors:  M Bergner; R A Bobbitt; S Kressel; W E Pollard; B S Gilson; J R Morris
Journal:  Int J Health Serv       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 1.663

3.  Toward an operational definition of health.

Authors:  D L Patrick; J W Bush; M M Chen
Journal:  J Health Soc Behav       Date:  1973-03

4.  Use of multivariate measures of disability in health surveys.

Authors:  J R Charlton; D L Patrick; H Peach
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1983-12       Impact factor: 3.710

5.  Developing multiattribute health indexes.

Authors:  M H Boyle; G W Torrance
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Evaluation of a postal screening questionnaire to identify the physically disabled.

Authors:  H Peach; S Green; D Locker; S Darby; D L Patrick
Journal:  Int Rehabil Med       Date:  1980

7.  The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public.

Authors:  D L Sackett; G W Torrance
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1978

8.  A scale of valuations of states of illness: is there a social consensus?

Authors:  R Rosser; P Kind
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1978-12       Impact factor: 7.196

9.  Disablement and care: a comparison of patient views and general practitioner knowledge.

Authors:  D L Patrick; H Peach; I Gregg
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1982-07
  9 in total
  19 in total

Review 1.  A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments.

Authors:  S J Coons; S Rao; D L Keininger; R D Hays
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Validation and modification of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale in Peruvian population.

Authors:  Edmundo Rosales-Mayor; Jorge Rey de Castro; Leandro Huayanay; Kenny Zagaceta
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2011-01-30       Impact factor: 2.816

3.  The meaning of healthy and not healthy: older African Americans and whites with chronic illness.

Authors:  M Silverman; S Smola; D Musa
Journal:  J Cross Cult Gerontol       Date:  2000

Review 4.  Measuring health status? A review of the sickness impact and functional limitations profiles.

Authors:  S J Williams
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1996-11

Review 5.  Operational aspects of Quality-of-Life Assessment. Choosing the right instrument.

Authors:  P Erickson; R C Taeuber; J Scott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: does choice of preference weights make a difference?

Authors:  I-Chan Huang; Richard J Willke; Mark J Atkinson; William R Lenderking; Constantine Frangakis; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-04-06       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Language of interview: relevance for research of southwest Hispanics.

Authors:  B Kirkman-Liff; D Mondragón
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Construct validation of the USA-Spanish version of the SF-36 health survey in a Cuban-American population with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Authors:  R Arocho; C A McMillan; P Sutton-Wallace
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  A comparison of three measures of perceived distress: results from a study of angina patients in general practice in Northern Ireland.

Authors:  C O'Neill; C Normand; M Cupples; A McKnight
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.