1 / 35

Quality of Life in Oporto and South of Douro Region – Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-36

Introdução à Medicina Turma 6 – 2006/2007. Quality of Life in Oporto and South of Douro Region – Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-36. What is Quality of Life (QoL)?. Difficult to define Multidimensional: Subjective Objective

patrice-xavier
Download Presentation

Quality of Life in Oporto and South of Douro Region – Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-36

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Introdução à Medicina Turma 6 – 2006/2007 Quality of Life in Oporto and South of Douro Region – Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-36

  2. What is Quality of Life (QoL)? • Difficult to define • Multidimensional: • Subjective • Objective • Not a static definition – varies with time and from person to person. • Quantifying QoL – important to improve populations’ well being. Jenney M, Campbell S. Measuring quality of life. Arch. Dis. Child. 1997; 77:347-350Clinical Rehabilitation, 2003; 17: 865-870 Research in Developmental Disabilities. 1995, 16 (1); 51-74.

  3. EQ-5D

  4. SF-36

  5. Objectives • Primary objective • Quantify the Health Related-Quality of Life (HR-QoL) of the adult population in Oporto and South of Douro region. • Compare measurement scales and subscales and analyse the agreement between two broadly used HR-QoL generic instruments – EQ-5D and SF-36. • Secondary objectives • Compare results between groups: • Age • Sex

  6. Methods • Random choice of 478 residences from the “Oporto and South of Douro” phonebook

  7. Methods – Pilot Study • Test the adopted method and improve it • Questionnaires + 4 additional questions about the viability of the study sent to 30 residences • No difficulties filling the questionnaires

  8. Methods – Final Study • Different techniques were adopted to maximize the response rates in the final study: • Make the questionnaire more personal and attractive Pilot Study Final Study

  9. Methods – Final Study • A bookmark was sent inside the letters to act as an incentive • A reminder note was sent with the second letters Reminder Note Bookmark

  10. Response rate

  11. Time of answer

  12. Sociodemographic data

  13. Age

  14. Questionnaire order: Chi-square test

  15. EQ-5D: Response by items

  16. SF-36: Response by items PF RP RE PF – physical functioningRP – role limitations due to physical healthRE – role limitations due to emotional problems

  17. EQ-5D index and VAS

  18. EQ-5D: 5 Dimensions

  19. EQ-5D results

  20. SF-36 domains PF – physical functioningRP – role limitations due to physical healthRE – role limitations due to emotional problemsEF – energy/fatigueEW – emotional well-beingSF – social functioningP – painGH – general health

  21. Male Mean Gender Female EQ-5D:independent samples T-test

  22. Male Mean * * * * Gender Female * * by Independent samples t test: p<0.05 SF-36:independent samples T-test PF – physical functioningRP – role limitations due to physical healthRE – role limitations due to emotional problemsEF – energy/fatigueEW – emotional well-beingSF – social functioningP – painGH – general health

  23. 18-39 * * * * Mean 40-64 Age Categories * * * * ≥ 65 EQ-5D: OneWay ANOVA * * by OneWay ANOVA: p<0.05

  24. 18-39 * * * * * * * * Mean 40-64 Age Categories * * * * * * * * ≥ 65 * * by OneWay ANOVA: p<0.05 SF-36: OneWay ANOVA PF – physical functioningRP – role limitations due to physical healthRE – role limitations due to emotional problemsEF – energy/fatigueEW – emotional well-beingSF – social functioningP – painGH – general health

  25. No Mean * * * * Have/had a serious disease? Yes EQ-5D:independent samples T-test * * by Independent samples t test: p<0.05

  26. No Mean * * * * * * * * Have/had a serious disease? Yes * * by Independent samples t test: p<0.05 SF-36:independent samples T-test PF – physical functioningRP – role limitations due to physical healthRE – role limitations due to emotional problemsEF – energy/fatigueEW – emotional well-beingSF – social functioningP – painGH – general health

  27. Correlations

  28. Scatters

  29. Discussion – Method’s limitations • Mail surveys: • Often low response rates • People might be unable to answer some questions • Sample selection: • Inhabitants without telephone, or whose phone number is not listed will not be contemplated • The phonebook may be outdated or even lack address information

  30. Discussion – Other limitations • Quality of Life: • Vast definition • Not objective • Difficult to measure • Varies with: • Time • Place • Personal expectations

  31. a: Quality of Life Research, 1998; 7: 155-166 b: Quality of Life Research, 2005; 14: 1099-1109 c: Quality of Life Research, 2005; 14: 1099-1109 d: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2006; 4: 47 e: Quality of Life Research, 1998; 7: 311-322 Discussion

  32. Discussion

  33. Discussion

  34. Conclusions • It was possible to quantify HR-QoL in the Oporto and South of Douro region using EQ-5D and SF-36. • The scales and subscales of both instruments are strongly correlated. • HR-QoL has little statistically significant differences between genders. • Statistically significant differences were found between age categories and health conditions.

  35. THE END

More Related