Literature DB >> 9425468

Discriminative power of the health status questionnaire 12 in relation to age, sex, and longstanding illness: findings from a survey of households in Great Britain.

A Bowling1, J Windsor.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of the health status questionnaire 12 (HSQ-12) to discriminate between older and younger age groups, its appropriateness for use with an older population in terms of the spread of responses across categories, floor or ceiling effects, and its ability to discriminate between those with and without a reported longstanding illness and type (sensitivity and specificity). DESIGN AND
SETTING: The vehicle for the study was the Office for National Statistics (ONS) omnibus survey in Great Britain. The sampling frame was the British post-code address file of "small users", stratified by region, and socioeconomic factors. This file includes all private household addresses. The postal sectors were selected with probability proportional to size. Within each sector 30 addresses were selected randomly. The number of selected addresses was 3000. PARTICIPANTS: Altogether 1912 adults aged 16 and over were interviewed in person in their own homes, giving a response rate of 72%. MEASURES: The HSQ-12, and the ONS general household survey questions on longstanding illness; the ONS omnibus standard sociodemographic items. MAIN
RESULTS: There were exceptionally high rates of item response in all age groups. The score differences by construct (e.g., age group, sex, longstanding illness) were in the expected directions with statistically significant age gradients. Age was associated with most of the HSQ-12 domains, although this association had interactions with longstanding illness or sex. The differences in HSQ-12 scores with reported longstanding illness and type of longstanding illness made theoretical sense, which supports the discriminative power of the scale. The frequency distributions for HSQ-12 items in relation to age and sex, and by reporting of longstanding illness are also presented here in order to demonstrate ceiling effects. Most respondents in all age groups achieved high (good) scores on the "social functioning" subscale. The HSQ-12 had good results for specificity when tested against reporting of a longstanding illness, although this was at the expense of sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS: The results support the use of the HSQ-12 with older populations, particularly for those with chronic illnesses, although it will reveal relatively few problems among younger populations. The results presented here indicate that it will require supplementation with more sensitive disease and/or domain specific scales in the areas of interest or intervention, but it provides an acceptable, brief, core measure of health related quality of life. This paper present the first British normative data using the HSQ-12.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9425468      PMCID: PMC1060544          DOI: 10.1136/jech.51.5.564

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  6 in total

1.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age.

Authors:  C Jenkinson; A Coulter; L Wright
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-05-29

3.  The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure.

Authors:  M Bergner; R A Bobbitt; W B Carter; B S Gilson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Using the SF-36 and Euroqol on an elderly population.

Authors:  J E Brazier; S J Walters; J P Nicholl; B Kohler
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care.

Authors:  J E Brazier; R Harper; N M Jones; A O'Cathain; K J Thomas; T Usherwood; L Westlake
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-07-18

6.  The SF-36 health survey questionnaire: is it suitable for use with older adults?

Authors:  V Hayes; J Morris; C Wolfe; M Morgan
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 10.668

  6 in total
  7 in total

1.  Multiple chronic health problems are negatively associated with health related quality of life (HRQoL) irrespective of age.

Authors:  H Michelson; C Bolund; Y Brandberg
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Quality of life in older people: a structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments.

Authors:  K L Haywood; A M Garratt; R Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Validation of the Dutch version of the CDC core healthy days measures in a community sample.

Authors:  Jaap Toet; Hein Raat; Erik Jc van Ameijden
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings.

Authors:  A Bowling; M Bond
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 5.  Obesity in the Context of Aging: Quality of Life Considerations.

Authors:  Francesco Corica; Giampaolo Bianchi; Andrea Corsonello; Natalia Mazzella; Fabrizia Lattanzio; Giulio Marchesini
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Functional ability among elderly people in three service settings: the discriminatory power of a new functional ability scale.

Authors:  K Avlund; B E Holstein
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 8.082

7.  The Impact of Audio Book on the Elderly Mental Health.

Authors:  Fereshteh Ameri; Naser Vazifeshenas; Abbas Haghparast
Journal:  Basic Clin Neurosci       Date:  2017 Sep-Oct
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.