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 2/2016

14-08-2015

Preference-based health-related quality of life among victims of bullying

Auteurs: Linda Beckman, Mikael Svensson, Ann Frisén

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 2/2016

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

No previous study has estimated the association between bullying and preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (“utility”), knowledge of which may be used for cost-effectiveness studies of interventions designed to prevent bullying. Therefore, the aim of the study was to estimate preference-based HRQoL among victims of bullying compared to non-victims.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey data collection among Swedish adolescents aged 15–17 years in the first year of upper secondary school was conducted in the city of Gothenburg in Sweden (N = 758). Preference-based HRQoL was estimated with the SF-6D. Regression analyses were conducted to adjust for some individual-level background variable.

Results

Mean preference-based health-related quality of life scores were 0.77 and 0.71 for non-victims and victims of bullying, respectively. The difference of 0.06 points was statistically significant (p < 0.05) and robust to inclusion of gender, age, and parental immigrant status.

Conclusions

The preference-based HRQoL estimates in this study may be used as an upper bound in economic evaluations of bullying prevention interventions, facilitating a comparison between costs and quality-adjusted life-years.
vorige artikel Content validity of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) items in the context of HIV clinical care
volgende artikel Empirical validation of the English version of the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory
Literatuur
1.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocia maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441–455.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Takizawa, R., Maughan, B., & Arseneault, L. (2014). Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization: Evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(7), 777–784.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Frisén, A., & Bjarnelind, S. (2010). Health-related quality of life and bullying in adolescence. Acta Paediatrica, 99(4), 597–603.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Wilkins-Shurmer, A., O’Callaghan, M., Najman, J., Bor, W., Williams, G., & Anderson, M. (2003). Association of bullying with adolescent health-related quality of life. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 39(6), 436–441.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Rigby, K., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Is school bullying really on the rise? Social Psychology of Education, 14(4), 441–455.CrossRef
6.
Currie, C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A., Currie, D., de Looze, M., Roberts, C., Samdal, O., Smith, O., & Barnekow, V. (2012). Social determinants of health and well-being among young people : Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) study : International report from the 2009/2010 survey. (No. 9289014237). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
7.
Sundell, K., & Forster, M. (2005). En grund för att växa i Gränslös utmaning—alkoholpolitik i ny tid [A foundation for growth in Limitless challenge-alcohol policy in the new era] I: Gränslös utmaning [Limitless challange] (SOU 2005:25) (appendix 8). Stockholm.
8.
Flygare, E., Gill, P. E., & Johansson, B. (2013). Lessons from a concurrent evaluation of eight antibullying programs used in Sweden. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(2), 170–189.CrossRef
9.
Ttofi, M., Farrington, D., & Baldry, A. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to reduce school bullying—A systematic review. Stockholm: The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
10.
SNAE. (2009). Kostnader för förskoleverksamhet, skolbarnsomsorg, skola och vuxenutbildning 2008: Skolverket (The Swedish National Agency for Education).
11.
Gold, M., Siegel, J., Russell, L., & Weinstein, M. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
NICE. (2004). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal.
13.
14.
Pliskin, J. S., Shepard, D. S., & Weinstein, M. C. (1980). Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research, 28, 206–224.CrossRef
15.
Zeckhauser, R. J., & Shepard, D. S. (1976). Where now for saving lives? Law and Contemporary Problems, 40(4), 5–45.CrossRef
16.
17.
Burström, K., Johannesson, M., & Diderichsen, F. (2001). Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 10(7), 621–635.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Ladapo, J. A., Neumann, P. J., Keren, R., & Prosser, L. A. (2007). Valuing children’s health: A comparison of cost-utility analyses for adult and paediatric health interventions in the US. Pharmacoeconomics, 25(10), 817–828.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Prosser, L. A., Hammitt, J. K., & Keren, R. (2007). Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics, 25(9), 713–726.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Petrou, S., & Kupek, E. (2009). Estimating preference-based health utilities index mark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland. Medical Decision Making, 29(3), 291–303.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kolinski, M., & Gandeck, B. (1993). SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre.
22.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Torrance, G. W., Boyle, M. H., & Horwood, S. P. (1982). Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Research, 30(6), 1043–1069.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
26.
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Mimeo HEMIL: University of Bergen.
27.
Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimisation at school and the health of secondary school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1), 95–104.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Basu, A., & Manca, A. (2012). Regression estimators for generic health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life years. Medical Decision Making, 32(1), 56–69.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
29.
Drummond, M. (2001). Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 344–349.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Bowes, L., Joinson, C., Wolke, D., & Lewis, G. (2015). Peer victimisation during adolescence and its impact on depression in early adulthood: Prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom. BMJ, 350, h2469.
31.
Eriksen, T. L. M., Nielsen, H. S., & Simonsen, M. (2014). Bullying in Elementary School. Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 839–871.CrossRef
32.
33.
Owen, L., Morgan, A., Fischer, A., Ellis, S., Hoy, A., & Kelly, M. P. (2012). The cost-effectiveness of public health interventions. Journal of Public Health, 34(1), 37–45.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Lawson, K. D., Kearns, A., Petticrew, M., & Fenwick, E. A. L. (2013). Investing in health: Is social housing value for money? A cost-utility analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 67, 829–834.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research, 24, 2045–2053.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
37.
38.
Card, N., & Hodges, E. (2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: Correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 451–461.CrossRef
39.
Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 410–420.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Preference-based health-related quality of life among victims of bullying
Auteurs
Linda Beckman
Mikael Svensson
Ann Frisén
Publicatiedatum
14-08-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1101-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2016

Quality of Life Research 2/2016 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Quality of life and emotional distress in patients and burden in caregivers: a comparison between assisted peritoneal dialysis and self-care peritoneal dialysis

OriginalPaper

Burden of caregivers of adult patients with schizophrenia in a predominantly African ancestry population

OriginalPaper

Psychosocial profile of pediatric brain tumor survivors with neurocognitive complaints

OriginalPaper

Correcting bias in self-rated quality of life: an application of anchoring vignettes and ordinal regression models to better understand QoL differences across commuting modes

OriginalPaper

Quality of life in women with lipoedema: a contextual behavioral approach

Brief Communication

Adaptation of the 10-Item Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire to Iranian Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea