The Relationship between Health-state Utilities and the SF-12 in a General Population

Lundberg, Lena; Johannesson, Magnus; Isacson, Dag; Borgqúist, Lars

doi:10.1177/0272989x9901900203

Cited by 106 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, the SF-12 has been considered a powerful instrument to assess HRQoL. 43,44 A further limitation of the study was that it did not determine whether those not on treatment were unaware of their hypertensive status. Presumably, some were identified by the study, others were aware that their BP was high but not yet started on treatment, and others were previously treated but non-compliant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health-related quality of life is worse in individuals with hypertension under drug treatment: results of population-based study

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients with hypertension usually report lower healthrelated quality of life (HRQoL), but it is unclear whether this is secondary to high blood pressure (BP) per se, drug treatment or awareness of disease. In a crosssectional study using a multistage population-based sample, participants were interviewed and examined at home. Hypertension was defined by BP X140/90 mm Hg or use of BP-lowering drugs. HRQoL was assessed through the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) and presented as the physical component summary (PCS), mental component summary (MCS) and the SF-12 eightdomain scale. In total, 1858 individuals were evaluated, being 60.1% women, aged 52.5 ± 4.1 years old, and 39.9% men, aged 47.2±9.1 years old. Prevalence of hypertension was 34.2% (95% CI 31.5-36.9). The PCS scores for hypertensive and normotensive participants were 49.4 (CI 48.6-50.2) and 51.06 (CI 50.4-51.7) (P ¼ 0.01), respectively, and the MCS scores were 49.1 (CI 47.9-50.3) and 50.5 (CI 49.6-51.2) (P ¼ 0.06), respectively. Participants with hypertension and not using BP drugs had higher HRQoL scores (PCS 49.6; MCS 51.9) than those using BP drugs either with uncontrolled (PCS 45.3; MCS 49.4) or controlled BP (PCS 46.2; MCS 47.7; Po0.05). We concluded that individuals with hypertension have worse quality of life, particularly when their BP is controlled by drugs. This perception may lead to lower rates of adherence to treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health-related quality of life is worse in individuals with hypertension under drug treatment: results of population-based study

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This item was therefore dropped in the reduced model. For the two items in the Mental Health (MH) dimension, we also had to combine two response alternatives to get a consistent regression equation'' [40].…”

Section: Item 19: Model Performance and Face Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The process of ''mapping'' is increasingly being used to predict health utilities, for application within health economic evaluations, using data on other indicators or measures of health. Guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. Objective The overall objective of this research was to develop a checklist of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting mapping studies. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting by researchers. This paper provides a detailed explanation and elaboration of the items contained within the MAPS statement. Methods In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items and accompanying explanations was created. A two-round, modified Delphi survey, with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list. Results From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely, (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion and (vi) other. For each item, we summarise the recommendation, illustrate it using an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature, and provide a detailed explanation to accompany the recommendation. Conclusions It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will promote clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. It is targeted at researchers developing mapping algorithms, peer reviewers and editors involved in the manuscript review process for mapping studies, and the funders of the research. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time. Each of the 23 items contained within the MAPS reporting statement is illustrated with an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature. In addition, a detailed explanation and elaboration is provided for each of the 23 reporting items.It is anticipated that the MAPS reporting statement will promote clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies.

show abstract

“…a six-variable regression equation drawn from five of the SF-36 components predicted 59.6% of the variance in quality of well-being (QWC) scores. Lundberg et al (70) found that a regression model that used the 12 items of the SF-12 scale explained 50% of the variance in rating-scale responses in a larger general-population sample. Bult et al (21) noted that a much higher percentage (85%) of variation was explained when the heterogeneity across subjects (calculated with latent class analysis to estimate unknown parameters and class membership) was taken into account.…”

Section: Mapping Health Status To Health Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference-Based Measures in Economic Evaluation in Health Care

Neumann¹,

Goldie²,

Weinstein³

2000

Annu. Rev. Public Health

258

250

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estimating preferences for states of health has been an active area of research in recent years. Unlike psychophysical approaches, which discriminate levels of health status, preference-based approaches incorporate values or utilities for health outcomes and can be used in cost-effectiveness analyses to aid resource allocation decisions. This chapter considers issues and controversies involved in using preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care, with a particular emphasis on cost-utility analysis and the estimation of quality-adjusted life years. Topics considered include techniques for measuring preferences, the use of preference-based classification systems, the relationship between patient and community preferences, methods for obtaining utilities from clinical trials, mapping health status from health utilities, the development of "off-the-shelf" preference weights, and proposed alternatives to quality-adjusted life years. We also consider applications of cost-utility analyses to public health interventions. Although cost-utility analyses have become more popular recently, many challenges remain for the field. Widespread acceptance of the methodology likely awaits more consensus on measurement techniques, as well as educational efforts in the public health and medical communities on the usefulness of the approach.

show abstract

The Relationship between Health-state Utilities and the SF-12 in a General Population

Cited by 106 publications

References 19 publications

Health-related quality of life is worse in individuals with hypertension under drug treatment: results of population-based study

Health-related quality of life is worse in individuals with hypertension under drug treatment: results of population-based study

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration

Preference-Based Measures in Economic Evaluation in Health Care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About