Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012 Jun 14;10:68. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-68.
Patient recall or the application of population norms are commonly used methods to estimate (unobservable) health status prior to acute-onset illness or injury; however, both measures are potentially subject to bias. This article reports tests of the validity of both approaches, and discusses the implications for reporting changes in health-related quality of life following acute-onset illness or injury.
Recalled pre-injury health status and health status at 5- and 12-months post-injury were collected from participants in a prospective cohort study of people injured in New Zealand. Reported post-injury health status was compared with recalled pre-injury status and New Zealand norms for two groups: those who reported having fully recovered, and those who had not.
There was a small but statistically significant difference between pre- and post-injury health state valuations for people who had fully recovered, with recalled pre-injury health status being higher than reported post-injury health. Perceived health status for those who had fully recovered was significantly higher than the population norm.
Retrospective evaluation of health status is more appropriate than the application of population norms to estimate health status prior to acute-onset injury or illness, although there may be a small upward bias in such measurements.
患者回忆或应用人群标准是常用于估计急性发作疾病或损伤前（不可观察）健康状况的方法；然而，这两种方法都可能存在偏差。本文报告了这两种方法的有效性测试，并讨论了其对报告急性发作疾病或损伤后健康相关生活质量变化的影响。
从新西兰受伤人群前瞻性队列研究的参与者中收集了受伤前的健康状况和受伤后 5 个月和 12 个月的健康状况。将报告的受伤后健康状况与已完全康复和未完全康复的两组的回忆性受伤前健康状况和新西兰标准进行了比较。
对于已完全康复的人群，受伤前后的健康状态评估值存在微小但具有统计学意义的差异，回忆性受伤前健康状况高于报告的受伤后健康状况。已完全康复者的感知健康状况显著高于人群标准。
与应用人群标准相比，回顾性评估健康状况更适合估计急性发作损伤或疾病前的健康状况，尽管此类测量可能存在微小的向上偏差。
