• 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

比较 2 种健康效用测量方法在 Medicare 健康结果调查(HOS)中的表现。

Comparing the Performance of 2 Health Utility Measures in the Medicare Health Outcome Survey (HOS).

机构信息

Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health and School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, (HJ).

Department of Community Health and Social Medicine, CUNY School of Medicine, New York, NY (EIL).

出版信息

Med Decis Making. 2018 Nov;38(8):983-993. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18808494.

DOI:10.1177/0272989X18808494
PMID:30403580
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (HOS), a nationwide annual survey of Medicare beneficiaries, includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's HRQOL-4 questionnaire and Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). This study compared EQ-5D scores derived from the HRQOL-4 (dEQ-5D) to SF-6D scores derived from VR-12.

METHODS

Data were from Medicare HOS Cohort 15 (2012 baseline; 2014 follow-up). We included participants aged 65+ ( n = 105,473). We compared score distributions, evaluated known-groups validity, assessed each index as a predictor for mortality, and estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the dEQ-5D and SF-6D.

RESULTS

Compared to the SF-6D, the dEQ-5D had a higher mean score (0.787 v. 0.691) and larger standard deviation (0.310 v. 0.101). The decreases in estimated scores associated with chronic conditions were greater for the dEQ-5D than for the SF-6D. For example, dEQ-5D scores for persons with depression decreased 0.456 points compared to 0.141 points for the SF-6D. The dEQ-5D strongly predicted mortality, as adjusted hazard ratios for the first to fourth quintiles, relative to the fifth quintile, were 2.2, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.5, respectively, while the association between SF-6D and mortality was weaker or nonexistent (adjusted hazard ratios were 1.3, 1.1, 1.0, and 0.6, respectively). Compared to the SF-6D, QALYs estimated using the dEQ-5D were higher overall (5.6 v. 4.9 years), higher for persons with less debilitating conditions (e.g., hypertension, 5.0 v. 4.4 years), and lower for more debilitating conditions (e.g. depression, 2.5 v. 2.8 years).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the SF-6D, the dEQ-5D was better able to measure individuals' overall health; detect the differential impact of chronic conditions, particularly among persons in poorer health; and predict mortality. The HRQOL-4 questionnaire may be valuable for monitoring and improving health outcomes for the Medical HOS data set.

摘要

背景

医疗保险健康结果调查(HOS)是一项针对医疗保险受益人的全国性年度调查,包括疾病预防控制中心的 HRQOL-4 问卷和退伍军人 RAND 12 项健康调查(VR-12)。本研究比较了 HRQOL-4 衍生的 EQ-5D 评分(dEQ-5D)与 VR-12 衍生的 SF-6D 评分。

方法

数据来自医疗保险 HOS 队列 15(2012 年基线;2014 年随访)。我们纳入了年龄在 65 岁及以上的参与者(n=105473)。我们比较了评分分布,评估了已知群体的有效性,评估了每个指数作为死亡率的预测指标,并使用 dEQ-5D 和 SF-6D 估计了质量调整生命年(QALYs)。

结果

与 SF-6D 相比,dEQ-5D 的平均评分更高(0.787 比 0.691),标准差更大(0.310 比 0.101)。与慢性疾病相关的估计评分下降,dEQ-5D 比 SF-6D 更大。例如,患有抑郁症的人的 dEQ-5D 评分下降了 0.456 分,而 SF-6D 评分下降了 0.141 分。dEQ-5D 对死亡率的预测能力很强,第一至第四五分位相对于第五五分位的调整危险比分别为 2.2、1.7、1.8 和 1.5,而 SF-6D 与死亡率的相关性较弱或不存在(调整危险比分别为 1.3、1.1、1.0 和 0.6)。与 SF-6D 相比,使用 dEQ-5D 估计的 QALYs 总体上更高(5.6 年比 4.9 年),身体状况较差者(如高血压,5.0 年比 4.4 年)更高,身体状况更差者(如抑郁症,2.5 年比 2.8 年)更低。

结论

与 SF-6D 相比,dEQ-5D 更能衡量个人的整体健康状况;检测慢性疾病的差异影响,特别是在健康状况较差的人群中;并预测死亡率。HRQOL-4 问卷可能对监测和改善医疗保险 HOS 数据集的健康结果具有价值。

相似文献

1
Comparing the Performance of 2 Health Utility Measures in the Medicare Health Outcome Survey (HOS).比较 2 种健康效用测量方法在 Medicare 健康结果调查(HOS)中的表现。
Med Decis Making. 2018 Nov;38(8):983-993. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18808494.
2
A comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia.一项针对精神分裂症患者的研究中SF-6D与EQ-5D效用评分的比较。
J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2009 Mar;12(1):27-31.
3
A comparison of utility measurement using EQ-5D and SF-6D preference-based generic instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.类风湿关节炎患者使用 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 偏好型通用量表进行效用测量的比较。
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011 Jul-Aug;29(4):661-71. Epub 2011 Aug 31.
4
Exploring the validity of estimating EQ-5D and SF-6D utility values from the health assessment questionnaire in patients with inflammatory arthritis.探讨从健康评估问卷估计炎症性关节炎患者的 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 效用值的有效性。
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Feb 11;8:21. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-21.
5
Differential Psychometric Properties of EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level and Short-Form 6-Dimension Utility Measures in Low Back Pain.《腰痛患者欧洲五维健康量表 5 维度 5 水平版与六维度简短量表效用测量的差异心理测量学特性》
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Jun 1;44(11):E679-E686. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002939.
6
EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D Utility Measures in Symptomatic benign Thyroid Nodules: Acceptability and Psychometric Evaluation.症状性良性甲状腺结节的 EQ-5D-5L 和 SF-6D 效用测量:可接受性和心理测量评估。
Patient. 2017 Aug;10(4):447-454. doi: 10.1007/s40271-017-0220-5.
7
Using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale to estimate health state utility values: mapping from the MSIS-29, version 2, to the EQ-5D and the SF-6D.使用多发性硬化症影响量表来估算健康状态效用值:从 MSIS-29 版本 2 到 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 的映射。
Value Health. 2012 Dec;15(8):1084-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.007. Epub 2012 Nov 4.
8
The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure.疾病严重程度对慢性心力衰竭 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 效用差异的影响。
Eur J Health Econ. 2011 Aug;12(4):383-91. doi: 10.1007/s10198-010-0252-4. Epub 2010 May 15.
9
Psychometric properties of the EuroQol-5D and Short Form-6D in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.欧洲五维健康量表(EuroQol-5D)和简化六维健康量表(Short Form-6D)在系统性红斑狼疮患者中的心理测量特性。
J Rheumatol. 2009 Jun;36(6):1209-16. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.081022. Epub 2009 Apr 15.
10
An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population.基于普通人群假设偏好对EQ-5D和SF-6D实证效度的调查。
Health Econ. 2005 Nov;14(11):1169-89. doi: 10.1002/hec.1006.

引用本文的文献

1
Summary Measure of Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Related Factors Based on the Chinese Version of the Core Healthy Days Measures: Cross-Sectional Study.基于核心健康天数测量中文版的健康相关生活质量及其相关因素的汇总测量:横断面研究。
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024 Jul 31;10:e52019. doi: 10.2196/52019.
2
Health-Related Quality of Life Scores and Values as Predictors of Mortality: A Scoping Review.健康相关生活质量评分和价值观作为死亡率预测因素的研究综述。
J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Nov;38(15):3389-3405. doi: 10.1007/s11606-023-08380-4. Epub 2023 Aug 31.
3
Cost effectiveness and health-related quality of life of chemoradiotherapy versus radiation therapy alone in elderly head and neck cancer patients.
放化疗与单纯放疗在老年头颈部癌症患者中的成本效果及健康相关生活质量比较。
Strahlenther Onkol. 2022 Nov;198(11):1008-1015. doi: 10.1007/s00066-022-01975-6. Epub 2022 Jul 14.
4
Quality of life and mortality in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.一般人群的生活质量和死亡率:系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Public Health. 2020 Nov 6;20(1):1596. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09639-9.
5
Using frailty and quality of life measures in clinical care of the elderly in Canada to predict death, nursing home transfer and hospitalisation - the frailty and ageing cohort study.使用虚弱和生活质量指标来预测加拿大老年人的临床护理中的死亡、养老院转移和住院治疗 - 虚弱和老龄化队列研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 12;9(11):e032712. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032712.