IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v21y2024i1p94-d1319402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Quality of Life: Incorporating Objectively Measurable Parameters within the Cross-Sectional Bern Cohort Study 2014 (BeCS-14)

Author

Listed:
  • Susanne Theis

    (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Division of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany)

  • Norman Bitterlich

    (Independent Researcher, Draisdorfer Str. 21, 09114 Chemnitz, Germany)

  • Michael von Wolff

    (University Clinic Bern, Division of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, University Women’s Hospital, Inselspital Bern, Friedbühlstrasse 19, 3010 Bern, Switzerland)

  • Petra Stute

    (University Clinic Bern, Division of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, University Women’s Hospital, Inselspital Bern, Friedbühlstrasse 19, 3010 Bern, Switzerland)

Abstract

Up until now, the measurement of Quality of Life (QoL) was based on validated subjective rating tools rather than objective measurement. To become more independent of the self-assessment of probands, a way to objectively measure QoL should be found. A monocenter, cross-sectional, observational, non-interventional trial was performed from 2012 to 2014 at Inselspital Bern to evaluate the bio-functional status (BFS), a complex, generic, non-invasive, sex- and age-validated assessment tool, in a wide range of areas. A standardized battery of assessments was performed on 464 females and 166 males, ages 18 to 65 (n = 630). In addition to the survey of the BFS, participants replied—among others—to the validated questionnaire SF-36 for health-related QoL (n = 447, subgroup 1). Since the accepted cut-off value for BFA calculation is age ≥ 35 years, subgroup 2 included 227 subjects (all participants aged ≥ 35 years out of subgroup 1). In order to be able to compare the eight SF-36 subscales to BFS parameters, a comparable score set of single BFS items had to be constructed. Subsequently, we aimed to statistically identify BFS item combinations that best represented each SF-36 subscale. All eight SF-36 subscales were significantly represented by various different combinations of BFS items. A total of 24 single BFS items significantly correlated with SF-36 subscales, of which 15 were objective and nine were subjective. All eight SF-36 subscales were significantly represented by various different combinations of BFS items leading to stronger correlations (range five to nine BFS items), and overall, sex and age did not affect these associations, but in the SF-36 subscales ‘bodily pain’ (sex) and ‘role limitations due to physical health problems’ (age in men). To our knowledge, we are the first to correlate a validated set of 34 objective and 9 subjective parameters with subjectively evaluated SF-36 subscales. This first study on the objectifiability of the SF-36 questionnaire demonstrated that questions on quality of life can be answered independently of a subjective assessment by subjects in future scientific studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Susanne Theis & Norman Bitterlich & Michael von Wolff & Petra Stute, 2024. "Measuring Quality of Life: Incorporating Objectively Measurable Parameters within the Cross-Sectional Bern Cohort Study 2014 (BeCS-14)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:21:y:2024:i:1:p:94-:d:1319402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/1/94/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/1/94/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Wilson & Jacqueline Parsons & Graeme Tucker, 2000. "The SF-36 summary scales: Problems and solutions," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 45(6), pages 239-246, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter Lercher & Paul B. Tchounwou, 2017. "Comments by the Academic Editors to Responses and Replies Concerning Mroczek et al.’s “Evaluation of Quality of Life of Those Living near a Wind Farm“: Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12 , 6," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-6, March.
    2. Graeme Tucker & Robert Adams & David Wilson, 2013. "Observed Agreement Problems between Sub-Scales and Summary Components of the SF-36 Version 2 - An Alternative Scoring Method Can Correct the Problem," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-10, April.
    3. David Wilson & Graeme Tucker & Catherine Chittleborough, 2002. "Rethinking and rescoring the SF-12," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 47(3), pages 172-177, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:21:y:2024:i:1:p:94-:d:1319402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.