Smith K W, McKinlay S M, Thorington B D
Am J Public Health. 1987 Apr;77(4):419-24. doi: 10.2105/ajph.77.4.419.
This study evaluated the validity of the scoring systems employed by 41 health risk assessment instruments (HRAs) with respect to the probability of death due to coronary heart disease. Validity was assessed by comparing predictions of mortality risk produced by each HRA to estimates from the Framingham Heart Study and the Risk Factor Update Project. Correlations with both epidemiologic estimates indicated that instruments employing logistic regression or the Geller/Gesner methodology had the highest validity coefficients, while validity was lowest for self-administered general health status and lifestyle questionnaires. However, most instruments using the Geller/Gesner technique appear to systematically overestimate the probability of CHD mortality. For HRAs based on additive risk scales, validity was often attenuated by the crude categorization of some risk factors and by the omission of the effects of age from the scoring system.
本研究评估了41种健康风险评估工具(HRA)所采用的评分系统对于冠心病死亡概率的有效性。通过将每种HRA得出的死亡风险预测与弗雷明汉心脏研究及风险因素更新项目的估计值进行比较,来评估有效性。与这两种流行病学估计值的相关性表明,采用逻辑回归或盖勒/格斯纳方法的工具具有最高的有效性系数,而自我管理的一般健康状况和生活方式问卷的有效性最低。然而,大多数使用盖勒/格斯纳技术的工具似乎系统性地高估了冠心病死亡的概率。对于基于累加风险量表的HRA,有效性常常因一些风险因素的粗略分类以及评分系统中未考虑年龄影响而减弱。