• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Comparing the psychometric properties of preference-based and nonpreference-based health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease. Canadian Collaborative Cardiac Assessment Group.

作者信息

Lalonde L, Clarke A E, Joseph L, Mackenzie T, Grover S A

机构信息

Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Montreal General Hospital, Quebec.

出版信息

Qual Life Res. 1999 Aug;8(5):399-409. doi: 10.1023/a:1008991816278.

DOI:10.1023/a:1008991816278
PMID:10474281
Abstract

A cross-sectional survey (n = 878) was conducted to compare the psychometric properties of three preference-based and one nonpreference-based health-related quality of life measures among healthy subjects with and without treatment for dyslipidemia and/or hypertension and patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). All measures were stable over a 3 to 6 week period. Compared to the Time Trade-off (TTO) and the Standard Gamble (SG), the Rating Scale (RS) correlated with the SF-36 Health Survey most highly. In contrast to the SF-36 General Health Perception (GHP), the SF-36 Physical Component scale and the RS, the TTO and SG were less able to discriminate CHD patients with various levels of physical disability. Only the SF-36 GHP subscale and the RS were able to differentiate healthy participants from participants receiving dyslipidemia and/or hypertension treatment. Neither the SF-36 Physical or Mental Component scales were able to discriminate these two groups. Overall, these results suggest that unlike the RS, the TTO and the SG, as administered in this study, may not be sufficiently sensitive to measure the impact of primary cardiovascular disease prevention strategies on the health-related quality of life of the participants.

摘要

相似文献

1
Comparing the psychometric properties of preference-based and nonpreference-based health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease. Canadian Collaborative Cardiac Assessment Group.
Qual Life Res. 1999 Aug;8(5):399-409. doi: 10.1023/a:1008991816278.
2
Conventional and chained standard gambles in the assessment of coronary heart disease prevention and treatment. Canadian Collaborative Cardiac Assessment Group.
Med Decis Making. 1999 Apr-Jun;19(2):149-56. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9901900205.
3
Health-related quality of life in cardiac patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension.合并血脂异常和高血压的心脏病患者的健康相关生活质量
Qual Life Res. 2004 May;13(4):793-804. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000021695.26201.a0.
4
Health-related quality of life with coronary heart disease prevention and treatment.冠心病防治中的健康相关生活质量。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Oct;54(10):1011-8. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00361-4.
5
A Swedish population-based study on the relationship between the SF-36 and health utilities to measure health in hypertension.一项基于瑞典人群的关于SF-36与健康效用值之间关系的研究,旨在测量高血压患者的健康状况。
Blood Press. 2003;12(4):203-10. doi: 10.1080/08037050310002083.
6
What utility scores do mental health service users, healthcare professionals and members of the general public attribute to different health states? A co-produced mixed methods online survey.心理健康服务使用者、医疗保健专业人员和普通公众对不同健康状况赋予了哪些效用评分?一项共同制定的混合方法在线调查。
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 23;13(10):e0205223. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205223. eCollection 2018.
7
Rating scale, standard gamble, and time trade-off for people with traumatic spinal cord injuries.创伤性脊髓损伤患者的评定量表、标准博弈法和时间权衡法
Phys Ther. 2006 Mar;86(3):337-44.
8
The standard gamble showed better construct validity than the time trade-off.标准博弈法比时间权衡法显示出更好的结构效度。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Oct;60(10):1029-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.001. Epub 2007 May 17.
9
Health values of patients with systemic sclerosis.系统性硬化症患者的健康价值观。
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Feb 15;57(1):86-93. doi: 10.1002/art.22465.
10
Patient utilities in chronic musculoskeletal pain: how useful is the standard gamble method?慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛患者的效用:标准博弈法有多有用?
Pain. 1999 Mar;80(1-2):365-75. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(98)00232-2.

引用本文的文献

1
Quality of life in adult patients with congenital heart disease: Results of a double-center study.成年先天性心脏病患者的生活质量:一项双中心研究的结果。
Front Psychiatry. 2023 Jan 12;13:1062386. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1062386. eCollection 2022.
2
Long-term health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of coronary CT angiography in patients with suspicion for acute coronary syndrome.疑似急性冠脉综合征患者冠状动脉 CT 血管造影的长期健康结局和成本效益。
J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2020 Jan-Feb;14(1):44-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jcct.2019.06.008. Epub 2019 Jun 25.
3
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Optimal Medical Therapy for Stable Angina in Advanced CKD: A Decision Analysis.

本文引用的文献

1
Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.组内相关系数:在评估评分者可靠性中的应用。
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.86.2.420.
2
Conventional and chained standard gambles in the assessment of coronary heart disease prevention and treatment. Canadian Collaborative Cardiac Assessment Group.
Med Decis Making. 1999 Apr-Jun;19(2):149-56. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9901900205.
3
Estimating the benefits of modifying risk factors of cardiovascular disease: a comparison of primary vs secondary prevention.评估改善心血管疾病风险因素的益处:一级预防与二级预防的比较。
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与最佳药物治疗对晚期慢性肾脏病稳定型心绞痛的疗效比较:一项决策分析
Am J Kidney Dis. 2017 Mar;69(3):350-357. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.07.024. Epub 2016 Sep 16.
4
Multivariate Meta-Analysis of Preference-Based Quality of Life Values in Coronary Heart Disease.冠心病基于偏好的生活质量值的多变量荟萃分析
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 24;11(3):e0152030. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152030. eCollection 2016.
5
Construct validity of the interview time trade-off and computer time trade-off in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-sectional observational pilot study.类风湿关节炎患者访谈时间权衡和计算机时间权衡的构建效度:一项横断面观察性初步研究。
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Jun 25;13:112. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-112.
6
The impact of obesity on diabetes, hyperlipidemia and hypertension in the United States.肥胖对美国糖尿病、高脂血症和高血压的影响。
Qual Life Res. 2008 Oct;17(8):1063-71. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9385-7. Epub 2008 Sep 8.
7
Overcoming inherent problems of preference-based techniques for measuring health benefits: an empirical study in the context of kidney transplantation.克服基于偏好的健康效益测量技术的固有问题:肾脏移植背景下的实证研究
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Jan 14;6:3. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-3.
8
Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation.欧洲五维度健康量表问卷在心脏康复中的效度验证
Heart. 2006 Jan;92(1):62-7. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2004.052787. Epub 2005 Mar 29.
9
Health-related quality of life in cardiac patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension.合并血脂异常和高血压的心脏病患者的健康相关生活质量
Qual Life Res. 2004 May;13(4):793-804. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000021695.26201.a0.
10
Adjusting distributions of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores of health-related quality of life.调整健康效用指数Mark 3健康相关生活质量效用得分的分布。
Qual Life Res. 2003 Feb;12(1):11-20. doi: 10.1023/a:1022017130014.
Arch Intern Med. 1998 Mar 23;158(6):655-62. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.6.655.
4
Readying a US measure of health status, the SF-36, for use in Canada.准备将美国的健康状况衡量指标SF - 36用于加拿大。
Clin Invest Med. 1997 Aug;20(4):224-38.
5
A comparison of time trade-off and quality of life measures in patients with advanced cancer.
Qual Life Res. 1997 Mar;6(2):133-8. doi: 10.1023/a:1026438100283.
6
Health status and hypertension: a population-based study.健康状况与高血压:一项基于人群的研究。
J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Nov;49(11):1239-45. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00220-x.
7
Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine.健康与医学成本效益小组的建议
JAMA. 1996 Oct 16;276(15):1253-8.
8
The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.成本效益分析在健康与医学中的作用。健康与医学成本效益专题小组。
JAMA. 1996 Oct 9;276(14):1172-7.
9
Heterogeneity in the relationship between the standard-gamble utility measure and health-status dimensions.
Med Decis Making. 1996 Jul-Sep;16(3):226-33. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9601600306.
10
The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication.
Med Decis Making. 1996 Jul-Sep;16(3):217-25. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9601600305.