Normierung des SF-12 Version 2.0 zur Messung der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität in einer deutschen bevölkerungsrepräsentativen Stichprobe

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Der Short-Form-Health Survey (SF-12) ist ein Screeninginstrument zur Erfassung der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität. Der Körperliche Skalenwert repräsentiert Allgemeine Gesundheitswahrnehmung, Körperliche Funktionsfähigkeit und Rollenfunktion sowie Schmerzen. Der Psychische Skalenwert bildet Emotionale Rollenfunktion, Psychisches Wohlbefinden, Negativen Affekt und Soziale Funktionsfähigkeit ab. Alternativ kann die Emotionale Rollenfunktion getrennt ermittelt werden. Die Daten entstammen einer schriftlichen Befragung einer für Deutschland repräsentativen Normstichprobe von N = 2 524 Personen. Der Körperliche Skalenwert kann mit R2 = .305 besser prädiziert werden als die Skalenwerte des psychischen Bereichs (R2 = .094 – .110). Das Alter determiniert den höchsten Varianzanteil. Zudem sind Geschlecht, Einkommen, Familienstand und Beruf prädiktiv. Die Normdaten werden für die Gesamtstichprobe sowie getrennt für Geschlechts- und Altersgruppen berichtet. Erwartungsgemäß treten in der nicht-klinischen Stichprobe Deckeneffekte am positiven Pol der Skalen auf. Einschränkungen der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität werden differenziert abgebildet.

Distributional Regression Techniques in Socioeconomic Research on the Inequality of Health with an Application on the Relationship between Mental Health and Income

“…The authors used variables that are standard in the field of (physical) health research, such as annual net equivalised household income, age, education, marital status, a variable indicating whether an individual is a German national (or not), and a variable indicating whether an individuals lives in former West or East Germany. These variables are also frequently used in mental health research [14,34,37,92] and are in line with current academic textbooks ([93], pp. 76–77).An individual’s income is operationalised as the annual net equivalised household income.…”

“…Thirdly, the MCS scale has good test-theoretical properties. Its internal consistency can be evaluated as acceptable [37], while its convergent and discriminatory validity, as well as its reliability can be evaluated as good [37,65,66]. Lastly, despite the ongoing discussions concerning the definition and measurement of mental health [67,68,69,70,71,72], we see this measure in line with the widely accepted definition of the World Health Organization (WHO) [73]: “mental health is a state of well-being in which every individual realises his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community”.…”

“…Using instruments based on self-reports are suited to measure aspects of health, since mental and physical health are facets of the health-related quality of life, which is a subjective matter [90]. Self-rated measurements are a standard tool in health research, and experience growing importance [37]. They may reveal insights that might not be gained with objective measurements—for example, according to Bährer-Kohler and Carod-Artal [91], many people state that they suffer from poor mental health even though they may not reach thresholds for official diagnoses.…”

“…Equivalently, increased odds for mental disorders are found for individuals with lower levels of income [14] or socioeconomic status [13,32,34,35,36]. Wirtz et al [37] reported that a higher income is associated with higher MCS scores (higher MCS scores indicated good mental health, and vice versa), whereby MCS scores are a composite mental health score which we also use in this publication (see Section 2). Additionally, Wood et al [38] showed that low income predicts mental distress since it functions as an indirect proxy for social rank.…”

Long-Term Outcome and Quality of Life After Cavernoma Resection: Eloquent vs. Non-Eloquent Areas.

“…Results from this test were re-calculated as described in SF-12 Health Survey Manual, [32] and compared to normative data from the general German population. [35] The evaluation of these results focused on a comparison between 1) the two groups EG and NEG, 2) the study population, EG, and NEG with a normative German population, respectively. [35] Statistical analysis…”