得出荷兰的残疾权重:荷兰残疾权重测量研究的结果。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Juanita A Haagsma, Periklis Charalampous
{"title":"得出荷兰的残疾权重:荷兰残疾权重测量研究的结果。","authors":"Juanita A Haagsma, Periklis Charalampous","doi":"10.1186/s12963-024-00342-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aims of this study were to establish national disability weights based on the health state preferences of a Dutch general population sample, examine the relation between results and respondent's characteristics, and compare disability weights with those estimated in the European disability weights study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, a web-based survey was administered to a general population 18-75 years from the Netherlands. The survey included paired comparison questions. Paired comparison data were analysed using probit regression and located results onto the 0-to-1 disability weight scale using non-parametric regression. Bootstrapping was used to estimate 95% uncertainty intervals (95%UI). Spearman's correlation was used to investigate the relation of probit regression coefficients between respondent's characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>3994 respondents completed the questionnaire. The disability weights ranged from 0.007 (95%UI: 0.003-0.012) for mild distance vision impairment to 0.741 (95% UI: 0.498-0.924) for intensive care unit admission. Spearman's correlation of probit coefficients between sub-groups based on respondent's characteristics were all above 0.95 (p < 0.001). Comparison of disability weights of 140 health states that were included in the Dutch and European disability weights study showed a high correlation (Spearman's correlation: 0.942; p < 0.001); however, for 76 (54.3%) health states the point estimate of the Dutch disability weight fell outside of the 95%UI of the European disability weights.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Respondent's characteristics had no influence on health state valuations with the paired comparison. However, comparison of the Dutch disability weights to the European disability weights indicates that health state preferences of the general population of the Netherlands differ from those of other European countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":51476,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Metrics","volume":"22 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457395/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deriving disability weights for the Netherlands: findings from the Dutch disability weights measurement study.\",\"authors\":\"Juanita A Haagsma, Periklis Charalampous\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12963-024-00342-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aims of this study were to establish national disability weights based on the health state preferences of a Dutch general population sample, examine the relation between results and respondent's characteristics, and compare disability weights with those estimated in the European disability weights study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, a web-based survey was administered to a general population 18-75 years from the Netherlands. The survey included paired comparison questions. Paired comparison data were analysed using probit regression and located results onto the 0-to-1 disability weight scale using non-parametric regression. Bootstrapping was used to estimate 95% uncertainty intervals (95%UI). Spearman's correlation was used to investigate the relation of probit regression coefficients between respondent's characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>3994 respondents completed the questionnaire. The disability weights ranged from 0.007 (95%UI: 0.003-0.012) for mild distance vision impairment to 0.741 (95% UI: 0.498-0.924) for intensive care unit admission. Spearman's correlation of probit coefficients between sub-groups based on respondent's characteristics were all above 0.95 (p < 0.001). Comparison of disability weights of 140 health states that were included in the Dutch and European disability weights study showed a high correlation (Spearman's correlation: 0.942; p < 0.001); however, for 76 (54.3%) health states the point estimate of the Dutch disability weight fell outside of the 95%UI of the European disability weights.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Respondent's characteristics had no influence on health state valuations with the paired comparison. However, comparison of the Dutch disability weights to the European disability weights indicates that health state preferences of the general population of the Netherlands differ from those of other European countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457395/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-024-00342-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Health Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-024-00342-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是根据荷兰普通人群样本的健康状况偏好建立全国残疾权重,研究结果与受访者特征之间的关系,并将残疾权重与欧洲残疾权重研究中估算的权重进行比较:在这项横断面研究中,我们对荷兰 18-75 岁的普通人群进行了网络调查。调查包括配对比较问题。配对比较数据使用概率回归法进行分析,并使用非参数回归法将结果定位到 0-1 残疾权重表上。使用 Bootstrapping 估算 95% 不确定区间 (95%UI)。Spearman 相关性用于研究受访者特征之间 probit 回归系数的关系:3994 名受访者完成了问卷调查。残疾权重从轻度远视障碍的 0.007(95%UI:0.003-0.012)到入住重症监护室的 0.741(95%UI:0.498-0.924)不等。根据受访者特征进行的分组间 probit 系数的 Spearman 相关性均在 0.95 以上(p 结论:受访者特征对分组间 probit 系数的相关性没有影响:通过配对比较,受访者的特征对健康状况估值没有影响。然而,将荷兰残疾权重与欧洲残疾权重进行比较后发现,荷兰普通民众的健康状况偏好与其他欧洲国家有所不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deriving disability weights for the Netherlands: findings from the Dutch disability weights measurement study.

Background: The aims of this study were to establish national disability weights based on the health state preferences of a Dutch general population sample, examine the relation between results and respondent's characteristics, and compare disability weights with those estimated in the European disability weights study.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a web-based survey was administered to a general population 18-75 years from the Netherlands. The survey included paired comparison questions. Paired comparison data were analysed using probit regression and located results onto the 0-to-1 disability weight scale using non-parametric regression. Bootstrapping was used to estimate 95% uncertainty intervals (95%UI). Spearman's correlation was used to investigate the relation of probit regression coefficients between respondent's characteristics.

Results: 3994 respondents completed the questionnaire. The disability weights ranged from 0.007 (95%UI: 0.003-0.012) for mild distance vision impairment to 0.741 (95% UI: 0.498-0.924) for intensive care unit admission. Spearman's correlation of probit coefficients between sub-groups based on respondent's characteristics were all above 0.95 (p < 0.001). Comparison of disability weights of 140 health states that were included in the Dutch and European disability weights study showed a high correlation (Spearman's correlation: 0.942; p < 0.001); however, for 76 (54.3%) health states the point estimate of the Dutch disability weight fell outside of the 95%UI of the European disability weights.

Conclusions: Respondent's characteristics had no influence on health state valuations with the paired comparison. However, comparison of the Dutch disability weights to the European disability weights indicates that health state preferences of the general population of the Netherlands differ from those of other 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
Population Health Metrics
Population Health Metrics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: Population Health Metrics aims to advance the science of population health assessment, and welcomes papers relating to concepts, methods, ethics, applications, and summary measures of population health. The journal provides a unique platform for population health researchers to share their findings with the global community. We seek research that addresses the communication of population health measures and policy implications to stakeholders; this includes papers related to burden estimation and risk assessment, and research addressing population health across the full range of development. Population Health Metrics covers a broad range of topics encompassing health state measurement and valuation, summary measures of population health, descriptive epidemiology at the population level, burden of disease and injury analysis, disease and risk factor modeling for populations, and comparative assessment of risks to health at the population level. The journal is also interested in how to use and communicate indicators of population health to reduce disease burden, and the approaches for translating from indicators of population health to health-advancing actions. As a cross-cutting topic of importance, we are particularly interested in inequalities in population health and their measurement.
×
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