Benchmarks for Interpretation of Score Differences on the SF-36 Health Survey for Patients with Diabetes
Abstract Objective To estimate clinical and social benchmarks for interpretation of score differences on the Short-Form 36 Health Survey, and apply these benchmarks to populations with diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods Using survival and logistic regression models, we reanalyzed data from three US coh...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Value in health 2013-09, Vol.16 (6), p.993-1000 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1000 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 993 |
container_title | Value in health |
container_volume | 16 |
creator | Bjorner, Jakob B., MD, PhD Lyng Wolden, Michael, MSc Gundgaard, Jens, PhD Miller, Kate A., PhD |
description | Abstract Objective To estimate clinical and social benchmarks for interpretation of score differences on the Short-Form 36 Health Survey, and apply these benchmarks to populations with diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods Using survival and logistic regression models, we reanalyzed data from three US cohorts: the Medical Outcomes Study (N = 3,445; 541 patients with DM), the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (N = 78,183; 16,388 patients with DM), and the QualityMetric 2009 Norming Study (N = 4,040; 580 patients with DM). Outcome variables were mortality, hospitalization, current inability to work, and loss of ability to work. Results Benchmarks were robust across disease groups, but varied according to age and score level. A 1-point lower score on the Physical Function, General Health, and Physical Component Summary scales was associated with a 1.05 to 1.09 relative risk (RR) of mortality for the typical patient with DM, with stronger associations in the younger age groups. For several scales (Physical Function, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Function, and Role Emotional), the associations with mortality also depended on score level, with stronger associations in the lower score ranges (i.e., patients in worse health). A 1-point lower score on the Physical Function, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Function, and Physical Component Summary scales implied a 1.02 to 1.04 RR of hospitalization, a 1.07 to 1.12 RR of being unable to work, and a 1.04 to 1.07 RR of losing the ability to work. Conclusions A 1-point lower score on selected Short-Form 36 Health Survey scales is associated with an excess risk of up to 9% for mortality and 12% for inability to work. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.022 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1541975698</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1098301513018809</els_id><sourcerecordid>1541975698</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c567t-c59609b680dfd0254da791959b07ad7309f1d56a903c16fa8ac2cbe31d72b97a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFklGL1DAQx4so3nn6BXyQvAi-tE6SJm1ABL3zvIMDhdXnkKYTNnvddk3Slf32pu6q4IMSmAzJ7z8J85-ieE6hokDl60212ZuhYkB5BbICxh4U51Swuqwbzh_mHFRbcqDirHgS4wYAJGficXHGaqgpr9V5sX6Po11vTbiPxE2B3I4Jwy5gMslPI5kcWdkpILnyzmHILEaSz9Mayeq65JLcoBnSmqzmsMfDzxKfsxTHFMl3ny-uvOkwYXxaPHJmiPjstF8UX68_fLm8Ke8-fby9fHdXWiGblKOSoDrZQu96YKLuTaOoEqqDxvQNB-VoL6RRwC2VzrTGMtshp33DOtUYflG8OtbdhenbjDHprY8Wh8GMOM1RU1FT1Qip2v-jNeeCLiuj7IjaMMUY0Old8LlrB01BL2bojV7M0IsZGqTOZmTRi1P9udti_1vyq_sZeHkCTLRmcMGM1sc_XAuNEpxn7s2Rw9y4vcego_WLF70PaJPuJ__vf7z9S24HP_r84j0eMG6mOYzZEk11ZBr0ahmbZWpoDm0Liv8ADWm7hw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1433515151</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Benchmarks for Interpretation of Score Differences on the SF-36 Health Survey for Patients with Diabetes</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Bjorner, Jakob B., MD, PhD ; Lyng Wolden, Michael, MSc ; Gundgaard, Jens, PhD ; Miller, Kate A., PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Bjorner, Jakob B., MD, PhD ; Lyng Wolden, Michael, MSc ; Gundgaard, Jens, PhD ; Miller, Kate A., PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objective To estimate clinical and social benchmarks for interpretation of score differences on the Short-Form 36 Health Survey, and apply these benchmarks to populations with diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods Using survival and logistic regression models, we reanalyzed data from three US cohorts: the Medical Outcomes Study (N = 3,445; 541 patients with DM), the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (N = 78,183; 16,388 patients with DM), and the QualityMetric 2009 Norming Study (N = 4,040; 580 patients with DM). Outcome variables were mortality, hospitalization, current inability to work, and loss of ability to work. Results Benchmarks were robust across disease groups, but varied according to age and score level. A 1-point lower score on the Physical Function, General Health, and Physical Component Summary scales was associated with a 1.05 to 1.09 relative risk (RR) of mortality for the typical patient with DM, with stronger associations in the younger age groups. For several scales (Physical Function, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Function, and Role Emotional), the associations with mortality also depended on score level, with stronger associations in the lower score ranges (i.e., patients in worse health). A 1-point lower score on the Physical Function, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Function, and Physical Component Summary scales implied a 1.02 to 1.04 RR of hospitalization, a 1.07 to 1.12 RR of being unable to work, and a 1.04 to 1.07 RR of losing the ability to work. Conclusions A 1-point lower score on selected Short-Form 36 Health Survey scales is associated with an excess risk of up to 9% for mortality and 12% for inability to work.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1098-3015</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1524-4733</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.022</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24041349</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Benchmarking ; benchmarks ; Biological and medical sciences ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Databases, Factual ; diabetes ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Female ; General aspects ; Health ; Health Status ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; interpretation ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Miscellaneous ; Mortality ; Pain ; patient-reported outcome ; Physical ability ; Planification. Prevention (methods). Intervention. Evaluation ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Quality of Life ; SF-36 ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards ; United States</subject><ispartof>Value in health, 2013-09, Vol.16 (6), p.993-1000</ispartof><rights>International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)</rights><rights>2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c567t-c59609b680dfd0254da791959b07ad7309f1d56a903c16fa8ac2cbe31d72b97a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c567t-c59609b680dfd0254da791959b07ad7309f1d56a903c16fa8ac2cbe31d72b97a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.022$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,30981,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=28079533$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041349$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bjorner, Jakob B., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyng Wolden, Michael, MSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gundgaard, Jens, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Kate A., PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Benchmarks for Interpretation of Score Differences on the SF-36 Health Survey for Patients with Diabetes</title><title>Value in health</title><addtitle>Value Health</addtitle><description>Abstract Objective To estimate clinical and social benchmarks for interpretation of score differences on the Short-Form 36 Health Survey, and apply these benchmarks to populations with diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods Using survival and logistic regression models, we reanalyzed data from three US cohorts: the Medical Outcomes Study (N = 3,445; 541 patients with DM), the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (N = 78,183; 16,388 patients with DM), and the QualityMetric 2009 Norming Study (N = 4,040; 580 patients with DM). Outcome variables were mortality, hospitalization, current inability to work, and loss of ability to work. Results Benchmarks were robust across disease groups, but varied according to age and score level. A 1-point lower score on the Physical Function, General Health, and Physical Component Summary scales was associated with a 1.05 to 1.09 relative risk (RR) of mortality for the typical patient with DM, with stronger associations in the younger age groups. For several scales (Physical Function, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Function, and Role Emotional), the associations with mortality also depended on score level, with stronger associations in the lower score ranges (i.e., patients in worse health). A 1-point lower score on the Physical Function, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Function, and Physical Component Summary scales implied a 1.02 to 1.04 RR of hospitalization, a 1.07 to 1.12 RR of being unable to work, and a 1.04 to 1.07 RR of losing the ability to work. Conclusions A 1-point lower score on selected Short-Form 36 Health Survey scales is associated with an excess risk of up to 9% for mortality and 12% for inability to work.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Benchmarking</subject><subject>benchmarks</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Databases, Factual</subject><subject>diabetes</subject><subject>Diabetes Mellitus</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Health Status</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>interpretation</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>patient-reported outcome</subject><subject>Physical ability</subject><subject>Planification. Prevention (methods). Intervention. Evaluation</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>SF-36</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1098-3015</issn><issn>1524-4733</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFklGL1DAQx4so3nn6BXyQvAi-tE6SJm1ABL3zvIMDhdXnkKYTNnvddk3Slf32pu6q4IMSmAzJ7z8J85-ieE6hokDl60212ZuhYkB5BbICxh4U51Swuqwbzh_mHFRbcqDirHgS4wYAJGficXHGaqgpr9V5sX6Po11vTbiPxE2B3I4Jwy5gMslPI5kcWdkpILnyzmHILEaSz9Mayeq65JLcoBnSmqzmsMfDzxKfsxTHFMl3ny-uvOkwYXxaPHJmiPjstF8UX68_fLm8Ke8-fby9fHdXWiGblKOSoDrZQu96YKLuTaOoEqqDxvQNB-VoL6RRwC2VzrTGMtshp33DOtUYflG8OtbdhenbjDHprY8Wh8GMOM1RU1FT1Qip2v-jNeeCLiuj7IjaMMUY0Old8LlrB01BL2bojV7M0IsZGqTOZmTRi1P9udti_1vyq_sZeHkCTLRmcMGM1sc_XAuNEpxn7s2Rw9y4vcego_WLF70PaJPuJ__vf7z9S24HP_r84j0eMG6mOYzZEk11ZBr0ahmbZWpoDm0Liv8ADWm7hw</recordid><startdate>20130901</startdate><enddate>20130901</enddate><creator>Bjorner, Jakob B., MD, PhD</creator><creator>Lyng Wolden, Michael, MSc</creator><creator>Gundgaard, Jens, PhD</creator><creator>Miller, Kate A., PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130901</creationdate><title>Benchmarks for Interpretation of Score Differences on the SF-36 Health Survey for Patients with Diabetes</title><author>Bjorner, Jakob B., MD, PhD ; Lyng Wolden, Michael, MSc ; Gundgaard, Jens, PhD ; Miller, Kate A., PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c567t-c59609b680dfd0254da791959b07ad7309f1d56a903c16fa8ac2cbe31d72b97a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Benchmarking</topic><topic>benchmarks</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Databases, Factual</topic><topic>diabetes</topic><topic>Diabetes Mellitus</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Health Status</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>interpretation</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>patient-reported outcome</topic><topic>Physical ability</topic><topic>Planification. Prevention (methods). Intervention. Evaluation</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>SF-36</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bjorner, Jakob B., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lyng Wolden, Michael, MSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gundgaard, Jens, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Kate A., PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Value in health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bjorner, Jakob B., MD, PhD</au><au>Lyng Wolden, Michael, MSc</au><au>Gundgaard, Jens, PhD</au><au>Miller, Kate A., PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Benchmarks for Interpretation of Score Differences on the SF-36 Health Survey for Patients with Diabetes</atitle><jtitle>Value in health</jtitle><addtitle>Value Health</addtitle><date>2013-09-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>993</spage><epage>1000</epage><pages>993-1000</pages><issn>1098-3015</issn><eissn>1524-4733</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objective To estimate clinical and social benchmarks for interpretation of score differences on the Short-Form 36 Health Survey, and apply these benchmarks to populations with diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods Using survival and logistic regression models, we reanalyzed data from three US cohorts: the Medical Outcomes Study (N = 3,445; 541 patients with DM), the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (N = 78,183; 16,388 patients with DM), and the QualityMetric 2009 Norming Study (N = 4,040; 580 patients with DM). Outcome variables were mortality, hospitalization, current inability to work, and loss of ability to work. Results Benchmarks were robust across disease groups, but varied according to age and score level. A 1-point lower score on the Physical Function, General Health, and Physical Component Summary scales was associated with a 1.05 to 1.09 relative risk (RR) of mortality for the typical patient with DM, with stronger associations in the younger age groups. For several scales (Physical Function, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Function, and Role Emotional), the associations with mortality also depended on score level, with stronger associations in the lower score ranges (i.e., patients in worse health). A 1-point lower score on the Physical Function, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Function, and Physical Component Summary scales implied a 1.02 to 1.04 RR of hospitalization, a 1.07 to 1.12 RR of being unable to work, and a 1.04 to 1.07 RR of losing the ability to work. Conclusions A 1-point lower score on selected Short-Form 36 Health Survey scales is associated with an excess risk of up to 9% for mortality and 12% for inability to work.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>24041349</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.022</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1098-3015 |
ispartof | Value in health, 2013-09, Vol.16 (6), p.993-1000 |
issn | 1098-3015 1524-4733 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1541975698 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
subjects | Adult Aged Benchmarking benchmarks Biological and medical sciences Data Interpretation, Statistical Databases, Factual diabetes Diabetes Mellitus Female General aspects Health Health Status Hospitalization Humans Internal Medicine interpretation Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Miscellaneous Mortality Pain patient-reported outcome Physical ability Planification. Prevention (methods). Intervention. Evaluation Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Quality of Life SF-36 Surveys and Questionnaires - standards United States |
title | Benchmarks for Interpretation of Score Differences on the SF-36 Health Survey for Patients with Diabetes |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T10%3A03%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Benchmarks%20for%20Interpretation%20of%20Score%20Differences%20on%20the%20SF-36%20Health%20Survey%20for%20Patients%20with%20Diabetes&rft.jtitle=Value%20in%20health&rft.au=Bjorner,%20Jakob%20B.,%20MD,%20PhD&rft.date=2013-09-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=993&rft.epage=1000&rft.pages=993-1000&rft.issn=1098-3015&rft.eissn=1524-4733&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.022&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1541975698%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1433515151&rft_id=info:pmid/24041349&rft_els_id=S1098301513018809&rfr_iscdi=true |