People with diabetes were less likely to meet either national or ADA recommendations for physical activity than people without diabetes. Our results demonstrate the need for more efforts from health-care professionals to promote physical activity in people with diabetes.

Diabetes was significantly associated with anxiety in adults in this large population-based sample, particularly in Hispanics and young adults.

Preference-based scoring approaches to measuring health-related quality of life (HRQL) in cancer are proliferating. The objective of this study was to compare preference-based scores estimated by scoring functions for the generic EQ-5D and cancer-specific Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) in terms of differences between algorithms and cancer subtype. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of patients with advanced cancer (breast, brain, colorectum, hepatobiliary system, lung, and ovary; nϭ41 to 49 for each subgroup) was conducted. Each patient completed both the EQ-5D and FACT; scores were calculated using scoring functions for EQ-5D (Dolan, Shaw et al), an EQ-5D mapping function (Cheng et al) and FACT (Kind/Macran, Dobrez et al). ECOG performance status rated by physician was used to stratify patients by severity. The relative statistical efficiency (RE) of each algorithm to capture differences in severity was compared using ratios of F-statistics. RESULTS: The rank order of the scores generated by different scoring functions were fairly consistent across cancer subtype, with the lowest mean scores derived from FACT by Kind/Macran (0.52, hepatobiliary, to 0.57, colorectal), and highest mean scores using scoring by Dobrez et al (0.80, hepatobiliary, to 0.85, brain). Within each scoring function, no statistically significant differences in mean scores were found across cancer types. The Dolan algorithm resulted in largest differences in mean scores by severity (ECOG) grades for brain, breast, colorectal and ovarian cancer. The FACT UK societal algorithm by Kind et al had the largest RE for 3 of the cancers (breast, hepatobiliary, and ovarian cancer). CONCLUSIONS: Each scoring approach produced different preference-based scores within and across subtype of cancer; extrapolating from ability to discriminate levels of severity EQ-5D scoring functions generally provided scores that would extrapolate to larger QALY benefits compared to FACT-based approaches. No statistically significant differences in the utility scores were observed across the cancer types, but some differences could be considered meaningful; lack of power was a limitation.