Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-06-2009

Self-rated health in persons with spinal cord injury: relationship of secondary conditions, function and health status

Auteurs: Gloria L. Krahn, Rie Suzuki, Willi Horner-Johnson

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2009

Abstract

Objective

Self-rated health is used frequently as a measure of health in the general population, and increasingly with persons with disabilities. However, its meaning and its relationship with other measures of self-reported health (health status and secondary conditions) are not well understood for this group. The purpose of the present study was to use a conceptual model to examine the structure of self-rated health with persons with spinal cord injuries.

Methods

A US sample of 270 adults with mobility impairment stemming from spinal cord injury (SCI) provided data on three measures of self-reported health that differ in degree of subjectivity: physical problems common to SCI, four domains of health status from the SF-36, and a single item on self-rated health. Data were compared with the norm sample of the SF-36. The conceptual model was tested using path analyses.

Results

SF-36 scores were lower on three of four domains compared with the norm sample. The conceptual model analyses indicated that 35% of variance in self-rated health is accounted for through direct relationship with physical secondary conditions common to persons with SCI and as mediated through SF-36 domains of Role Physical and Vitality. The SF-36 domain of Physical Function was statistically unrelated to self-rated health.

Conclusion

The conceptual model of self-rated health was verified in a sample of persons with SCI. Importantly, the SF-36 domain of Physical Function does not relate to self-rated health for this group. Its inclusion in measures of self-reported for disability populations creates difficulty without apparent benefit.

vorige artikel Questions never asked. Positive family outcomes of extremely premature childbirth

volgende artikel Measuring stigma across neurological conditions: the development of the stigma scale for chronic illness (SSCI)

Zack, M. M., Moriarty, D. G., Stroup, D. F., Ford, E. S., & Mokdad, A. H. (2004). Worsening trends in adult health-related quality of life and self-rated health-United States, 1993–2001. Public Health Reports, 119(5), 493–505. doi:10.1016/j.phr.2004.07.007.PubMedCrossRef

Bailis, D. S., Segall, A., & Chipperfield, J. G. (2003). Two views of self-rated general health status. Social Science & Medicine, 56(2), 203–217. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00020-5.CrossRef

Idler, E. L., Hudson, S. V., & Leventhal, H. (1999). The meanings of self-ratings of health: A qualitative and quantitative approach. Research on Aging, 21(3), 458–476. doi:10.1177/0164027599213006.CrossRef

Bosworth, H. B., Siegler, I. C., Brummett, B. H., Barefoot, J. C., Williams, R. B., Clapp-Channing, N. E., et al. (1999). The association between self-rated health and mortality in a well-characterized sample of coronary artery disease patients. Medical Care, 37(12), 1226–1236. doi:10.1097/00005650-199912000-00006.PubMedCrossRef

Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38(1), 21–37. doi:10.2307/2955359.PubMedCrossRef

Miilunpalo, S., Vuori, I., Oja, P., Pasanen, M., & Urponen, H. (1997). Self-rated health status as a health measure: The predictive value of self-reported health status on the use of physician services and on mortality in the working-age population. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(5), 517–528. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00045-0.PubMedCrossRef

Sullivan, M. D., Kempen, G. I., Van Sonderen, E., & Ormel, J. (2000). Models of health-related quality of life in a population of community-dwelling Dutch elderly. Quality of Life Research, 9(7), 801–810. doi:10.1023/A:1008987709788.PubMedCrossRef

Hoeymans, N., Feskens, E. J., Kromhout, D., & van den Bos, G. A. (1997). Ageing and the relationship between functional status and self-rated health in elderly men. Social Science & Medicine, 45(10), 1527–1536. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00089-0.CrossRef

Shoostari, S., Menec, V., & Tate, R. (2007). Comparing predictors of positive and negative self-rated health between younger (25–54) and older (55+) Canadian adults. Research on Aging, 29, 512–554. doi:10.1177/0164027507305729.CrossRef

10.

Johnson, R. J., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1993). The structure of health status among older adults: Disease, disability, functional limitation and perceived health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34, 105–121. doi:10.2307/2137238.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Jamoom, E. W., Horner-Johnson, W., Suzuki, R., Andresen, E. M., Campbell, V. A., & The R.R.T.C. (2008). Expert panel on health status measurement. Age at disability onset and self-reported health status. BMC Public Health, 8, 10.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Cott, C. A., Gignac, M. A., & Badley, E. M. (1999). Determinants of self rated health for Canadians with chronic disease and disability. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53(11), 731–736. doi:10.1136/jech.53.11.731.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Meyers, A. R., Andresen, E. M., & Hagglund, K. J. (2000). A model of outcomes research: Spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(12, Suppl 2), S81–S90. doi:10.1053/apmr.2000.20629.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Chen, H., Cohen, P., Kasen, S., Gordan, K., Dufur, R., & Smailes, E. (2004). Construction and validation of a quality of life instrument for young adults. Quality of Life Research, 13(4), 747–759. doi:10.1023/B:QURE.0000021700.42478.ab.PubMedCrossRef

15.

McHorney, C. A. (1999). Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 309–335. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.20.1.309.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Ware, J. E., Jr, Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (2000). SF-36 Health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric, Inc.

17.

Simeonsson, R. J., & Leskinen, M. (1999). Disability, secondary conditions and quality of life: Conceptual issues. In R. J. Simeonsson & L. N. McDevitt (Eds.), Issues in disability & health: The role of secondary conditions & quality of life (pp. 51–72). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

18.

Nosek, M. A., Hughes, R. B., Petersen, N. J., Taylor, H. B., Robinson-Whelen, S., Byrne, M., et al. (2006). Secondary conditions in a community-based sample of women with physical disabilities over a one-year period. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87, 320–327. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.11.003.PubMedCrossRef

19.

CDC. (2001). Prevalence of disabilities, associated health conditions among adults–United States, 1999. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 50(7), 120–125.

20.

Seekins, T., & Ravesloot, C. (2000). Secondary conditions experienced by adults with injury-related disabilities in Montana. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 6(1), 43–53. doi:10.1310/X6HA-0XJ9-FK15-D7X0.CrossRef

21.

Hall, T. (2008). Review of existing HRQOL measures. Presented at the state of the science conference on health, wellness and disability. Portland, OR, May 9, 2008.

22.

Krahn, G., Fujiura, G. T., Drum, C. E., Cardinal, B. J., & Nosek, M. A. (2009). The dilemma of measuring perceived health status in the context of disability. Disability and Health Journal, 2(2), 49–56.CrossRef

23.

Froelich-Grobe, K., Andresen, E. M., Caburnay, C., Roberts, J., & White, G. (2008). Measuring health-related quality of life for persons with physical disabilities: An enabled version of the Short-form 36 (SF-36E). Quality of Life Research, 17, 751–770. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9342-5.CrossRef

24.

Meyers, A. R., & Andresen, E. M. (2000). Enabling our instruments: accommodation, universal design, and access to participation in research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(12, Suppl 2), S5–S9. doi:10.1053/apmr.2000.20618.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Tate, D. G., Kalpakjian, C. Z., & Forchheimer, M. B. (2002). Quality of life issues in individuals with spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(12, Suppl 2), S18–S25. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.36835.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Rapkin, B. D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2004). Toward a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal: Implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 14. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-2-14.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 59–65. doi:10.1001/jama.273.1.59.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Borhrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

29.

Suzuki, R., Krahn, G. L., McCarthy, M. J., & Adams, E. J. (2007). Understanding health outcomes: Physical secondary conditions in people with spinal cord injury. Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(3), 338–350. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.52.3.338.CrossRef

30.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2005). Mplus 3.13. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

31.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

32.

Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1998). Model selection and inference: A practical information—theoretical approach. New York: Springer.

33.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRef

34.

Krahn, G., McCarthy, M., Westwood, D., & Powers, L. (2008). Evaluation of an innovative methodology to recruit research participants with spinal cord injury through durable medical equipment suppliers. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 1341–1349. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.035.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Dijkers, M. P. J. M., Yavuzer, G., Ergin, S., Weitzenkamp, D., & Whiteneck, G. G. (2002). A tale of two countries: Environmental impacts on social participation after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 40(7), 351–362. doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3101310.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Johnson, R. L., Gerhart, K. A., McCray, J., Menconi, J. C., & Whiteneck, G. G. (1998). Secondary conditions following spinal cord injury in a population-based sample. Spinal Cord, 36(1), 45–50. doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3100494.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Westgren, N., & Levi, R. (1998). Quality of life and traumatic spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 1433–1439. doi:10.1016/S0003-9993(98)90240-4.PubMedCrossRef

38.

International W.H.O. (2001). Classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

39.

Schwartz, C. E., Andresen, E. M., Nosek, M. A., Krahn, G. L., & Rrtc Expert Panel on Health Status Measurement. (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. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2006.12.032.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Leduc, B. E., & Lepage, Y. (2002). Health-related quality of life after spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(4), 196–202. doi:10.1080/09638280110067603.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Andresen, E. M., Fouts, B. S., Romeis, J. C., & Brownson, C. A. (1999). Performance of health-related quality-of-life instruments in a spinal cord injured population. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80(8), 877–884. doi:10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90077-1.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Forchheimer, M., McAweeney, M., & Tate, D. G. (2004). Use of the SF-36 among persons with spinal cord injury. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 83(5), 390–395. doi:10.1097/01.PHM.0000124441.78275.C9.CrossRef

43.

Whiteneck, G., Meade, M. A., Dijkers, M., Tate, D. G., Bushnik, T., & Forchheimer, M. B. (2004). Environmental factors and their role in participation and life satisfaction after spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(11), 1793–1803. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.04.024.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Albrecht, G. L., & Devlieger, P. J. (1999). The disability paradox: High quality of life against all odds. Social Science & Medicine, 48(8), 977–988. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00411-0.CrossRef

45.

Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research, 12(6), 599–607. doi:10.1023/A:1025119931010.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Murray, C. J., & Acharya, A. K. (1997). Understandy DALYs (disability-adjusted life years). Journal of Health Economics, 16, 703–730. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(97)00004-0.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Grosse, S. D., Lollar, D. J., Campbell, V. A., & Chamie, M. (2009) Disability and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs): Not the same. Public Health Reports, in press.

Titel: Self-rated health in persons with spinal cord injury: relationship of secondary conditions, function and health status
Auteurs: Gloria L. Krahn
Rie Suzuki
Willi Horner-Johnson
Publicatiedatum: 01-06-2009
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9477-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2009

Are gender-associated differences in quality of life in colorectal cancer patients disease-specific?

The construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in assessing mental health in population health surveys

Life events and oral-health-related quality of life among young adults

Questions never asked. Positive family outcomes of extremely premature childbirth

Structure of the sense of coherence scale in a nationally representative sample: the Finnish Health 2000 survey

Alternative approaches to derive disability weights in injuries: do they make a difference?