IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v16y1996i2p169-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Angina Patients' Ratings of Current Health and Health without Angina

Author

Listed:
  • Arnold Y. Chen
  • Jennifer Daley
  • George E. Thibault

Abstract

Objective. To investigate the relationship between chronic stable angina patients' rat ings of two health states (current health and health free of angina), the difference between these two ratings (the "anticipated gain"), and measures of anginal severity and comorbidity. Design. Cross-sectional interviews and questionnaires. Setting. Out patient clinics and medical inpatient service of a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Par ticipants. Patients with chronic stable angina with no prior history of a revascularization procedure attending clinic appointments (n = 44) or electively admitted for cardiac catheterization (n = 11). Measurements. Ratings of current health and health free of angina using a verbal rating scale in which 0 = death and 100 = perfect health, the MOS SF-36, the Index of Coexistent Disease (a validated measure of comorbidity), and a question on the severity of anginal symptoms. Results. Mean (95% Cl) rating of current health was 61.8 (59.2, 64.4) and that of health free of angina was 77.0 (74.5, 79.5). Median anticipated gain between the two health ratings was 10.0 (range 0-80). Correlations between ratings for both health states and subscales of the SF-36 were positive, with some reaching statistical significance. In regression models with rating of current health, rating of life without angina, and anticipated gain as the dependent variables, severity of comorbidity was highly significant in all three, whereas severity of angina was significant only in the current-health rating model. Severity of comorbidity had much greater explanatory power in all three models than did severity of angina. Conclusions. Severity of comorbidity was a better predictor of patients' current health rating, rating for angina-free health, and anticipated gain from relief of angina than was severity of angina. Since patient perceptions of a symptom may be distinct from self- reported symptom severity, treatment-outcome studies should assess patient prefer ences in addition to symptom severity. Comorbidity should also be measured in such studies. Having patients rate current health and symptom-free health may be a useful measure of treatment effectiveness for specific symptoms in clinical trials and patient care, and may help patients and clinicians prioritize multiple health problems. Key words: quality of life; functional status; utility; patient preferences; comorbidity; angina. (Med Decis Making 1996;16:169-177)

Suggested Citation

  • Arnold Y. Chen & Jennifer Daley & George E. Thibault, 1996. "Angina Patients' Ratings of Current Health and Health without Angina," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 169-177, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:2:p:169-177
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9601600209
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9601600209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Neal V. Dawson, 1996. "Disease Spectrum and Health-status Perceptions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 195-196, June.

    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:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:2:p:169-177. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.