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 6/2013

01-08-2013 | Original Paper

Monitoring population health for Healthy People 2020: evaluation of the NIH PROMIS® Global Health, CDC Healthy Days, and satisfaction with life instruments

Auteurs: John P. Barile, Bryce B. Reeve, Ashley Wilder Smith, Matthew M. Zack, Sandra A. Mitchell, Rosemarie Kobau, David F. Cella, Cecily Luncheon, William W. Thompson

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2013

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

Healthy People 2020 identified health-related quality of life and well-being (WB) as indicators of population health for the next decade. This study examined the measurement properties of the NIH PROMIS® Global Health Scale, the CDC Healthy Days items, and associations with the Satisfaction with Life Scale.

Methods

A total of 4,184 adults completed the Porter Novelli’s HealthStyles mailed survey. Physical and mental health (9 items from PROMIS Global Scale and 3 items from CDC Healthy days measure), and 4 WB factor items were tested for measurement equivalence using multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis.

Results

The CDC items accounted for similar variance as the PROMIS items on physical and mental health factors; both factors were moderately correlated with WB. Measurement invariance was supported across gender and age; the magnitude of some factor loadings differed between those with and without a chronic medical condition.

Conclusions

The PROMIS, CDC, and WB items all performed well. The PROMIS items captured a broad range of functioning across the entire continuum of physical and mental health, while the CDC items appear appropriate for assessing burden of disease for chronic conditions and are brief and easily interpretable. All three measures under study appear to be appropriate measures for monitoring several aspects of the Healthy People 2020 goals and objectives.
vorige artikel Biological pathways and genetic mechanisms involved in social functioning
volgende artikel Health-related quality of life in relation to walking habits and fitness: a population-based study of 75-year-olds
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Foundation health measures. Healthy People 2020. Retrieved July 5, 2011.
2.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Measuring Healthy Days. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
3.
Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 873–880.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Moriarty, D. G., Kobau, R., Zack, M. M., & Zahran, H. S. (2005). Tracking Healthy Days—A window on the health of older adults. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2(3), A16.PubMed
6.
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Chichester: Wiley.
7.
National Center for Health Statistics. (1994). In Proceedings of the 1993 NCHS conference on the cognitive aspects of self-reported health status. Unpublished manuscript.
8.
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (1993). Consultation on functional status surveillance for states and communities: Decatur, Georgia, June 4–5, 1992: Meeting report. US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
9.
Booske, B. C., Kindig, D. A., Remington, P. L., Kempf, A. M., & Peppard, P. E. (2006). How should we measure health-related quality of life in Wisconsin? University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute Brief Report (Vol. 1). University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute.
10.
Moriarty, D. G., Zack, M. M., & Kobau, R. (2003). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Healthy Days measures—Population tracking of perceived physical and mental health over time. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1, 37.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Jiang, Y., & Hesser, J. E. (2009). Using item response theory to analyze the relationship between health-related quality of life and health risk factors. Preventing Chronic Disease, 6(1), 1–10.
12.
Mielenz, T., Jackson, E., Currey, S., DeVellis, R., & Callahan, L. F. (2006). Psychometric properties of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Health-related quality of life (CDC HRQOL) items in adults with arthritis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 66–84.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Horner-Johnson, W., Suzuki, R., Krahn, G., Andresen, E., Drum, C., & The RRTC Expert Panel on Health. (2010). Structure of health-related quality of life among people with and without functional limitations. Quality of Life Research, 19(7), 977–984.
14.
Parrish, R. G. (2010). Measuring population health outcomes. Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy, 7(4), 1–11.
15.
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 402–435.CrossRef
18.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRef
19.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Bann, C. M., Kobau, R., Lewis, M. A., Zack, M. M., Luncheon, C., & Thompson, W. W. (2011). Development and psychometric evaluation of the public health surveillance well-being scale. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1031–1043.
22.
Porter Novelli International. (2010). HealthStyles survey. Washington, DC: Porter Novelli.
23.
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, 149–161.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Blais, M. R., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Brière, N. M. (1989). L’échelle de satisfaction de vie: Validation canadienne-française du” Satisfaction with Life Scale”. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21(2), 210–223.CrossRef
25.
Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 1046–1053.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Pavot, W. (2008). The assessment of subjective well-being. New York: The Guilford Press.
27.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137–152.CrossRef
28.
Larsen, R. J., & Eid, M. (2008). Ed Diener and the science of subjective well-being. New York: The Guilford Press.
29.
Kobau, R., Sniezek, J., Zack, M. M., Lucas, R. E., & Burns, A. (2010). Well-being assessment: An evaluation of well-being scales for public health and population estimates of well-being among US adults. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2, 272–297.CrossRef
30.
Diener, E. (2009). The science of well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener. New York: Springer.CrossRef
31.
Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (2010). Mplus statistical analysis with latent variables (Version 6.0). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.
32.
Flora, D., & Curran, P. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef
35.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods Research, 21, 230–258.CrossRef
36.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
37.
Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S78–S94.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5(2), 139–158.CrossRef
39.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.CrossRef
40.
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) Analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76.CrossRef
41.
Gandek, B., Ware, J. E., Jr, Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Bjorner, J., et al. (1998). Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the SF-36 in eleven countries: Results from the IQOLA Project. International quality of life assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1149–1158.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Albrecht, G. L., & Devlieger, P. J. (1999). The disability paradox: High quality of life against all odds. Social Science and Medicine, 48(8), 977–988.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Krahn, G., Fujiura, G., Drum, C., Cardinal, B., Nosek, M., & RRTC Expert Panel on Health Measurement. (2009). The dilemma of measuring perceived health status in the context of disability. Disability and Health Journal, 2(2), 49–56.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Schwartz, C. E., Andresen, E. M., Nosek, M. A., & Krahn, G. L. (2007). Response shift theory: Important implications for measuring quality of life in people with disability. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(4), 529–536.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Rothrock, N., Hays, R., Spritzer, K., Yount, S., Riley, W., & Cella, D. (2010). Relative to the general US population, chronic diseases are associated with poorer health-related quality of life as measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
46.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Multiple chronic conditions—A strategic framework: Optimum health and quality of life for individuals with multiple chronic conditions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
47.
Boyd, C. M., & Fortin, M. (2010). Future of multimorbidity research: How should understanding of multimorbidity inform health system design? Public Health Reviews, 32(2), 451–474.
Metagegevens
Titel
Monitoring population health for Healthy People 2020: evaluation of the NIH PROMIS® Global Health, CDC Healthy Days, and satisfaction with life instruments
Auteurs
John P. Barile
Bryce B. Reeve
Ashley Wilder Smith
Matthew M. Zack
Sandra A. Mitchell
Rosemarie Kobau
David F. Cella
Cecily Luncheon
William W. Thompson
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2013
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0246-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2013

Quality of Life Research 6/2013 Naar de uitgave

Erratum

Erratum to: Perceived health is partially associated with the symptomatological profile in patients with benign and severe conditions: the case of congenital heart disease

OriginalPaper

Longitudinal analysis of the relationship between PTSD symptom clusters, cigarette use, and physical health-related quality of life

OriginalPaper

Superselective α-adrenergic blockers versus transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective comparison of health-related quality of life outcome after treating patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia

OriginalPaper

The role of gender in the association of social capital, social support, and economic security with self-rated health among older adults in deprived communities in Beirut

OriginalPaper

Type D, anxiety and depression in association with quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease and patients with multiple sclerosis

OriginalPaper

Assessment of proximal outcomes of self-management programs: translation and psychometric evaluation of a German version of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ™)