Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2094-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This study aimed to validate the use of subjective wellbeing (SWB) in patients with heart disease, to explore the complementary vs substitute relationship between SWB and health status utility (HSU), and to reveal which life domains matter for patients with heart disease compared to healthy persons.
Data were obtained from a large multi-national, multi-instrument comparison survey. Subjective wellbeing instruments (ONS4, PWI, SWLS), health status utility instruments (15D, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L, HUI3 and SF-6D) and a disease-specific quality of life instrument (MacNew) were administered among patients with heart disease (N = 943). Validity and sensitivity of SWBs were studied. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to examine the difference in descriptive systems between the SWB, HSU and MacNew. The importance of life domain satisfaction in explaining overall life satisfaction was investigated using regression analysis.
The known-group analysis showed that both SWB and HSU scores differed according to changes in the severity of heart disease. EFA showed that SWB and HSU were generally complementary instruments. The life domains that were significantly important to patients with heart disease were standard of living, followed by achieving in life, personal relationships, personal health, and future security. Compared to the healthy public, personal health and future security were significantly more important life domains.
Assessing SWB provides complementary information on understanding heart patients’ subjective outcome over the use of quality of life instruments alone. Given the adverse psychological impact of heart disease, addressing the important domain revealed by SWB assessment in management planning should be considered.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Koch, M. B., Davidsen, M., Andersen, L. V., Juel, K., & Jensen, G. B. (2015). Increasing prevalence despite decreasing incidence of ischaemic heart disease and myocardial infarction. A national register based perspective in Denmark, 1980–2009. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 22(2), 189–195. CrossRefPubMed
Rosamond, W., Flegal, K., Furie, K., Go, A., Greenlund, K., Haase, N., et al. (2008). Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2008 update—A report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation, 117(4), E25–E146. PubMed
Rumsfeld, J. S., MaWhinney, S., McCarthy, M., Shroyer, A. L. W., VillaNueva, C. B., O’Brien, M., et al. (1999). Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 281(14), 1298–1303. CrossRef
Quality-of-Life and Clinical-Trials. (1995). Lancet, 346(8966), 1–2.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. CrossRef
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855. CrossRef
Tanno, K., Sakata, K., Ohsawa, M., Onoda, T., Itai, K., Yaegashi, Y., Tamakoshi, A., & Grp, J. S. (2009). Associations of ikigai as a positive psychological factor with all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality among middle-aged and elderly Japanese people: Findings from the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 67(1), 67–75. CrossRefPubMed
Tindle, H. A., Chang, Y. F., Kuller, L. H., Manson, J. E., Robinson, J. G., Rosal, M. C., Siegle, G. J., & Matthews, K. A. (2009). Optimism, cynical hostility, and incident coronary heart disease and mortality in the Women’s Health Initiative. Circulation, 120(8), 656–662. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FDA (2009). Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Last Accessed 4, June, 2018.
European Medicines Agency. (2005). Committee for medicinal products for human use. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. Available from: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/13939104en.pdf. Last Accessed 4, June, 2018.
Dolan, P., Layard, R., & Metcalfe, R. (2011). Measuring Subjective wellbeing for public policy: Recommendations on measures. CEP Special Papers 23, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
Personal Well-being user guidance. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/methodologies/personalwellbeingsurveyuserguide. Last accessed 24 August 2018.
International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal Wellbeing Index: 5th Edition. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. CrossRef
Vautier, S., Mullet, E., & Jmel, S. (2004). Assessing the structural robustness of self-rated satisfaction with life: A sem analysis. Social Indicators Research, 68(2), 235–249. CrossRef
Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the satisfaction with life scale—Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 149–161. CrossRef
De Smedt, D., Clays, E., & De Bacquer, D. (2016). Measuring health-related quality of life in cardiac patients. The European Heart Journal - Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes, 2(3), 149–150. CrossRef
Heiskanen, J., Tolppanen, A. M., Roine, R. P., Hartikainen, J., Hippelainen, M., Miettinen, H., & Martikainen, J. (2016). Comparison of EQ-5D and 15D instruments for assessing the health-related quality of life in cardiac surgery patients. The European Heart Journal - Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes, 2(3), 193–200. CrossRef
Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Lezzi, A., & Khan, M. (2011). Modelling the utility of health states with the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) 8D instrument: Overview and utility scoring algorithm. Available from: http://www.aqol.com.au/papers/researchpaper63.pdf. Last Accessed 4th June 2018.
Health Utilities Inc. Leaders in health-related quality of life research. Available from: http://www.healthutilities.com. Last Accessed 4th June 2018.
Fayers, P., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. New York: Wiley. CrossRef
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
McAdams, K. K., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). The role of domain satisfaction in explaining the paradoxical association between life satisfaction and age. Social Indicators Research, 109(2), 295–303. CrossRef
Basu, A. (2005). Extended generalized linear models: Simultaneous estimation of flexible link and variance functions. The Stata Journal, 5(4), 501–516. CrossRef
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Journal of Health Psychology, 4(3), 219–247. CrossRef
Easterlin, R. A., & Sawangfa, O. (2009). Happiness and domain satisfaction: New directions for the economics of happiness. Happiness, Economics and Politics: Towards a Multi-Disciplinary Approach, 70–94.
- Measuring subjective wellbeing in patients with heart disease: relationship and comparison between health-related quality of life instruments
- Springer International Publishing