IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i2p122-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subjective Health Status and Health Values in the General Population

Author

Listed:
  • Amir Shmueli

Abstract

Objective. To explore the relationship between rating-scale evaluation of health-related quality of life ("health value") and two subjective evaluations of health: the SF-36 profile and the five-category perception of general health (excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor). Methods. This relationship was explored by linear and nonlinear regression analysis of data obtained through face-to-face interviews with a sample of 2,030 per sons aged 45-75 years representing the Israeli Jewish urban population in that age group. Results. The main outcome is a mapping assigning health values to the sub jective health-status scores, e.g., "good" general health is equivalent to a health value of 76-81, depending on the functional form of the relation. "Poor" health is equivalent to a value of 45-61. The R 2 is about 0.3. While the eight scales of the SF-36 were found to be linearly related to health value (R 2 = 0.51), the two summary measures— physical component scale (PCS) and mental component scale (MCS)—were not. The scales measuring general health, vitality, and physical functioning were the main de terminants of health value, while the role-performance scales were insignificant. The PCS had a larger effect than the MCS. Discussion. These relationships provide deeper insight into the structure and meaning of the two health-status measures in the general population. They also place earlier determinations of these relationships among sick persons in a broader context and raise several further questions regarding the rela tionship between health values and health status. Key words: rating scale; health- related quality of life; health value; MOS SF-36; subjective evaluation of health; Box- Cox regression. (Med Decis Making 1999;19:122-127)

Suggested Citation

  • Amir Shmueli, 1999. "Subjective Health Status and Health Values in the General Population," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 122-127, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:2:p:122-127
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900202
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900202?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. Hamzah Bakouni & Helen-Maria Vasiliadis, 2020. "Off-Label Use of Antipsychotics and Health Related Quality of Life in Community Living Older Adults," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(4), pages 991-1004, September.
    2. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    3. William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85, January.
    4. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.

    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:19:y:1999:i:2:p:122-127. 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.