Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 12/2020

08-08-2020

Comparing South Korean and US self-rated health using anchoring vignettes

Auteurs: Eunjeong Kang, Hanna Grol-Prokopczyk

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 12/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

This study compares the self-rated health (SRH) of South Korean and US respondents, using anchoring vignettes to adjust for reporting heterogeneity, i.e., cross-national differences in use of response categories.

Methods

Study participants, ages 20 to 59, were recruited from online survey panels retained by Embrain in Korea (N = 1170) and the US (N = 1033). In the analyses, we first examined the two key measurement assumptions of the anchoring vignette method. Response consistency was examined by regressing SRH on vignette ratings and EQ-5D, and was satisfied when the relationship between SRH and vignette ratings was significant and positive. Vignette equivalence was assessed by examining whether respondents correctly rank-ordered vignettes by health status severity. We then compared estimates of the between-country difference in SRH from two models: a standard ordered probit regression, and a hierarchical ordered probit (Hopit) regression, which adjusted for cross-country differences in use of response categories.

Results

The anchoring vignettes satisfied both measurement assumptions. Results from the ordered probit regression indicated that Korean SRH was worse than that in the US. However, results from the Hopit regression revealed that Korean SRH was actually better than that in the US, after adjusting for Korean respondents’ significantly higher intercategory thresholds (demarcating between “very bad” and “bad,” “bad” and “fair,” etc.).

Conclusion

The apparently lower SRH of Korean vis-à-vis US respondents is an artifact of Koreans’ higher standards for health-related response categories. After adjusting for these different standards, Korean SRH is revealed to be higher than US SRH.
vorige artikel Quality of life and its predictors among aging people in urban and rural Nepal
volgende artikel EQ-5D-3L health status and health state utilities of the oldest-old (85 +) in Germany: results from the AgeCoDe-AgeQualiDe study
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Idler, E. L., & Benyamin, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Social & Health Behavior, 38(1), 21–37.CrossRef
2.
Wallace, R. B., & Herzog, R. (1995). Overview of the health measures in the health and retirement study. The Journal of Human Resources, 30, S84–S107.CrossRef
3.
4.
Kim, M., & Khang, Y.-H. (2019). Why do Japan and South Korea record very low levels of perceived health despite having very high life expectancies? Yonsei Medical Journal, 60(10), 998–1003.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Lee, Y., & Shinkai, S. (2003). A comparison of correlates of self-rated health and functional disability of older persons in the Far East: Japan and Korea. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 37(1), 63–76.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Park, J. H., & Lee, K. S. (2013). Self-rated health and its determinants in Japan and South Korea. Public Health, 127, 834–843.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Lee, S. Y., Kim, S. J., Yoo, K. B., Lee, S. G., & Park, E.-C. (2016). Gender gap in self-rated health in South Korea compared with the United States. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16, 11–20.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Kim, R., & Chung, W. (2019). Associations of socioeconomic and religious factors with health: A population-based, comparison study between China and Korea using the 2000 East Asian Social Survey. BMC Public Health, 19, 35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38, 28–42.CrossRef
10.
French, D. J., Browning, C., Kendig, H., Luszcz, M. A., Saito, Y., Sargent-Cox, K., et al. (2012). A simple measure with complex determinants: Investigation of the correlates of self-rated health in older men and women from three continents. BMC Public Health, 12, 649.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Kang, E., & Han, L. (2019). A comparison between Korea and the US in self-rated health and its related factors. Health and Social Science, 50, 111–132.
12.
Bago d’Duva, T., Lindeboom, M., O’Donnell, O., & van Doorsalaer, E. (2011). Slipping anchors? Testing the vignettes approach to identification and correction of reporting heterogeneity. Journal of Human Resources, 46(4), 875–906.CrossRef
13.
Grol-Prokopczyk, H. (2014). Age and sex effects in anchoring vignette studies: Methodological and empirical contributions. Survey Research Methods, 8(1), 1–17.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
King, G., Murray, C. J. L., Salomon, J. A., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of survey research. American Political Science Review, 98, 191–207.CrossRef
15.
Grol-Prokopczyk, H., Freese, J., & Hauser, R. M. (2011). Using anchoring vignettes to assess group differences in general self-rated health. Journal of Social and Health Behavior, 52(2), 246–261.CrossRef
16.
17.
Kang, E. J., Shin, H. S., Park, H. J., Jo, M. W., & Kim, N. Y. (2008). A valuation of health status using EQ-5D. The Korean Journal of Health Economics and Policy, 12(2), 19–43.
18.
Shaw, J. W., Johnson, J. A., & Coons, S. J. (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: Development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Medical Care, 43(3), 203–220.PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
21.
Murray, C. J. L., Özaltin, E., Tandon, A., Salomon, J., Sadana, R., & Chatterji, S. (2003). Empirical evaluation of the anchoring vignette approach in health surveys. Health systems performance assessment: Debates, methods and empiricism (pp. 369–399). Geneva: World Health Organization.
22.
StataCorp, (2013). Stata statistical software: Release 13. College Station: StataCorp LP.
23.
24.
Mu, R. (2014). Regional disparities in self-reported health: Evidence from Chinese older adults. Health Economics, 23, 529–549.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Jürges, H. (2007). True health vs response styles: Exploring cross-country differences in self-reported health. Health Economics, 16(2), 163–178.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Iburg, K. M., Salomon, J. A., Tandon, A., & Murray, C. J. L. (2002). Cross-population comparability of physician-assessed and self-reported measures of health. In C. J. L. Murray, J. A. Salomon, C. D. Mathers, & A. D. Lopez (Eds.), Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ethics, measurement and applications (pp. 433–448). Geneva: World Health Organization.
27.
Murray, C. J. L., Tandon, A., Salomon, J. A., Mathers, C. D., & Sadana, R. (2002). New approaches to enhance cross-population comparability of survey results. In C. J. L. Murray, J. A. Salomon, C. D. Mathers, & A. D. Lopez (Eds.), Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ethics, measurement and applications (pp. 421–431). Geneva: World Health Organization.
28.
Bago d’Duva, T., O’Donnell, O., & van Doorsalaer, E. (2008). Differential health reporting by education level and its impact on the measurement of health inequalities among older Europeans. International Journal of Epidemiology, 37, 1375–1383.CrossRef
29.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1245–1267.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Chen, C., Lee, S.-Y., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among east Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6(3), 170–175.CrossRef
31.
32.
Beuthner, C., Friedrich, M., Herbes, C., & Ramme, I. (2018). Examining survey response styles in cross-cultural marketing research: A comparison between Mexican and South Korean respondents. International Journal of Market Research, 60(3), 257–267.CrossRef
33.
Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC). (2019). 2018 National Health Statistics: The 3rd year of 7th wave of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2018) (p. 87). Osong: KCDC.
34.
35.
Mitchell, R. (2005). Commentary: The decline of death-How do we measure and interpret changes in self-reported health across cultures and time? International Journal of Epidemiology, 34, 306–308.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Grol-Prokopczyk, H. (2018). In pursuit of anchoring vignettes that work: Evaluating generality versus specificity in vignette texts. Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Gerontological Society of America, 73(1), 54–63.CrossRef
37.
Rice, N., Robone, S., & Smith, P. (2011). Analysis of the validity of the vignette approach to correct for heterogeneity in reporting health system responsiveness. The European Journal of Health Economics, 12(2), 141–162.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Bago d’Duva, T., Lindeboom, M., O’Donnell, O., & van Doorsalaer, E. (2011). Slipping anchors? Testing the vignettes approach to identification and correction of reporting heterogeneity. Journal of Human Resources, 46(4), 875–906.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Comparing South Korean and US self-rated health using anchoring vignettes
Auteurs
Eunjeong Kang
Hanna Grol-Prokopczyk
Publicatiedatum
08-08-2020
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 12/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02599-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 12/2020

Quality of Life Research 12/2020 Naar de uitgave

Brief Communication

Underlying dimensions of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in a Cuban population of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OriginalPaper

Depression, temporomandibular disorders, and genetic polymorphisms in IL6 impact on oral health-related quality of life in patients requiring orthognathic surgery

OriginalPaper

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): can they be used to guide patient-centered care and optimize outcomes in total knee replacement?

OriginalPaper

Social cohesion and quality of life among survivors of a natural disaster

Letter to the Editor

Registered Reports: a process to safeguard high-quality evidence

Letter to the Editor

Registered Reports: response from ISOQOL’s New Investigator SIG