不同自评健康指标的可比性如何?来自五个欧洲国家的证据

Hendrik Jürges, M. Avendano
{"title":"不同自评健康指标的可比性如何?来自五个欧洲国家的证据","authors":"Hendrik Jürges, M. Avendano","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1445365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Self-rated health (SRH) is a common health measurement in international research. Yet different versions of this item are often applied. This study compares the US (United States) version (from excellent to poor) and the EU (European) version (from very good to very bad) of SRH, and examines differences in their associations with demographic and objective health variables. Data were drawn from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), comprising information from 11,622 respondents aged 50 years and over in five countries. Respondents were presented with both the EU and US versions. Information was collected on basic demographics and health variables including chronic diseases, symptoms, functional limitations and depression. Firstly, the distribution of each version of the SRH item was assessed, and both relative and literal concordance was examined. Subsequently, multivariate regression analysis was used to assess differences in the associations of both items with demographic and health indicators. The US version has a more symmetric distribution and smaller variance than the EU version. Although the EU version discriminates better at the negative end, the US version shows better discrimination at the negative end of the scale. 69% of respondents provided literally concordant answers, while only about one third provided relatively concordant answers. Overall, however, less than 10% of respondents were discordant in either sense. Furthermore, the two versions were strongly correlated (polychoric correlation = 0.88), had similar associations with demographics and health indicators, and showed a similar pattern of variation across countries. Health levels based on different versions of the self-rated health item are not directly comparable and require rescaling of items. However, both versions represent parallel assessments of the same latent health variable. We did not find evidence that the EU version is preferable to the US version as standard measure of SRH in European countries.","PeriodicalId":253435,"journal":{"name":"Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) Discussion Paper Series","volume":"92 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Comparable are Different Measures of Self-Rated Health? Evidence from Five European Countries\",\"authors\":\"Hendrik Jürges, M. Avendano\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1445365\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Self-rated health (SRH) is a common health measurement in international research. Yet different versions of this item are often applied. This study compares the US (United States) version (from excellent to poor) and the EU (European) version (from very good to very bad) of SRH, and examines differences in their associations with demographic and objective health variables. Data were drawn from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), comprising information from 11,622 respondents aged 50 years and over in five countries. Respondents were presented with both the EU and US versions. Information was collected on basic demographics and health variables including chronic diseases, symptoms, functional limitations and depression. Firstly, the distribution of each version of the SRH item was assessed, and both relative and literal concordance was examined. Subsequently, multivariate regression analysis was used to assess differences in the associations of both items with demographic and health indicators. The US version has a more symmetric distribution and smaller variance than the EU version. Although the EU version discriminates better at the negative end, the US version shows better discrimination at the negative end of the scale. 69% of respondents provided literally concordant answers, while only about one third provided relatively concordant answers. Overall, however, less than 10% of respondents were discordant in either sense. Furthermore, the two versions were strongly correlated (polychoric correlation = 0.88), had similar associations with demographics and health indicators, and showed a similar pattern of variation across countries. Health levels based on different versions of the self-rated health item are not directly comparable and require rescaling of items. However, both versions represent parallel assessments of the same latent health variable. We did not find evidence that the EU version is preferable to the US version as standard measure of SRH in European countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":253435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) Discussion Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"92 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) Discussion Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1445365\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) Discussion Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1445365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

自评健康(SRH)是国际上常用的健康测量方法。然而,这个项目的不同版本经常被应用。本研究比较了美国(美国)版本(从优秀到差)和欧盟(欧洲)版本(从非常好到非常差)的SRH,并检查了它们与人口统计学和客观健康变量的关联差异。数据来自欧洲健康、老龄化和退休调查(SHARE),其中包括来自五个国家50岁及以上的11,622名答复者的信息。受访者分别看到了欧盟和美国的版本。收集了关于基本人口统计和健康变量的信息,包括慢性病、症状、功能限制和抑郁症。首先,评估了各版本SRH条目的分布,并检验了相对一致性和字面一致性。随后,使用多变量回归分析来评估这两个项目与人口统计和健康指标的关联差异。与欧盟版本相比,美国版本的分布更对称,差异更小。尽管欧盟版本在负端的歧视程度更高,但美国版本在负端的歧视程度更高。69%的受访者给出了完全一致的答案,而只有大约三分之一的人给出了相对一致的答案。然而,总体而言,不到10%的受访者在任何一种意义上都不同意。此外,这两个版本具有很强的相关性(多重相关性= 0.88),与人口统计和健康指标有相似的关联,并在各国之间显示出相似的变化模式。基于不同版本的自评健康值项目的健康水平不能直接比较,需要重新缩放项目。然而,这两个版本代表了对同一潜在健康变量的平行评估。我们没有发现证据表明欧盟版本比美国版本更适合作为欧洲国家SRH的标准衡量标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Comparable are Different Measures of Self-Rated Health? Evidence from Five European Countries
Self-rated health (SRH) is a common health measurement in international research. Yet different versions of this item are often applied. This study compares the US (United States) version (from excellent to poor) and the EU (European) version (from very good to very bad) of SRH, and examines differences in their associations with demographic and objective health variables. Data were drawn from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), comprising information from 11,622 respondents aged 50 years and over in five countries. Respondents were presented with both the EU and US versions. Information was collected on basic demographics and health variables including chronic diseases, symptoms, functional limitations and depression. Firstly, the distribution of each version of the SRH item was assessed, and both relative and literal concordance was examined. Subsequently, multivariate regression analysis was used to assess differences in the associations of both items with demographic and health indicators. The US version has a more symmetric distribution and smaller variance than the EU version. Although the EU version discriminates better at the negative end, the US version shows better discrimination at the negative end of the scale. 69% of respondents provided literally concordant answers, while only about one third provided relatively concordant answers. Overall, however, less than 10% of respondents were discordant in either sense. Furthermore, the two versions were strongly correlated (polychoric correlation = 0.88), had similar associations with demographics and health indicators, and showed a similar pattern of variation across countries. Health levels based on different versions of the self-rated health item are not directly comparable and require rescaling of items. However, both versions represent parallel assessments of the same latent health variable. We did not find evidence that the EU version is preferable to the US version as standard measure of SRH in European countries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信