Differences between psychometric and utility measures on quality-of-life and their associated factors in hemodialysis patients

Shu Chang Yang, Jung Der Wang, Mai Szu Wu, Pei Wen Kuo, Syi Su

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare quality-of-life (QOL) scores from WHOQOL-BERF (TW) and QOL values from the standard gamble (SG) method or visual analogue scale (VAS) method in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Comparisons were also made among associated factors of global scores, SG and VAS values. Methods: A cross sectional survey of QOL was conducted in 506 HD patients from 13 HD centers in Taipei and Keelung areas. Instruments included: (1) WHOQOL-BREF (TW) from which scores of global QOL. physical, psychological, social relationship and environment domains were calculated; (2) QOL values of SG and VAS methods based on utility theory. Results: In HD patients, SG values were significantly higher than VAS values, global score and four domains. In contrast, VAS values were about the same as psychometric scores. Pearson correlations of SG values and peychometric scores (0.10-0.20) were relatively lower than those of VAS values and psychometric scores (0.22-0.53). Associated factors of SG values were education, religion comorbidity, urea reduction rate, erythropoietin dosage, with total R 2 only 0.20. Associated factor of global QOL scores were area, comorbidity and hemoglobin level, with R 2 0.42. Associated factors of VAS values were education and family monthly income, with total R 2 0.42. Conclusion: Total QOL measures of SG, VAS, and global QOL from WHOQOL-BREF (TW) in HD patients were significantly different and their associated factors were complex.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)99-109
Number of pages11
JournalTaiwan Journal of Public Health
Volume26
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Visual Analog Scale
Psychometrics
Renal Dialysis
Quality of Life
Comorbidity
Education
Social Environment
Religion
Erythropoietin
Urea
Hemoglobins
Cross-Sectional Studies
Economics
Psychology

Keywords

  • Hemodialysis
  • Quality of life
  • Standard gamble
  • Visual analogue scale

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Differences between psychometric and utility measures on quality-of-life and their associated factors in hemodialysis patients. / Yang, Shu Chang; Wang, Jung Der; Wu, Mai Szu; Kuo, Pei Wen; Su, Syi.

In: Taiwan Journal of Public Health, Vol. 26, No. 2, 04.2007, p. 99-109.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f695ce66015f4f9aac247700e659807e,
title = "Differences between psychometric and utility measures on quality-of-life and their associated factors in hemodialysis patients",
abstract = "Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare quality-of-life (QOL) scores from WHOQOL-BERF (TW) and QOL values from the standard gamble (SG) method or visual analogue scale (VAS) method in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Comparisons were also made among associated factors of global scores, SG and VAS values. Methods: A cross sectional survey of QOL was conducted in 506 HD patients from 13 HD centers in Taipei and Keelung areas. Instruments included: (1) WHOQOL-BREF (TW) from which scores of global QOL. physical, psychological, social relationship and environment domains were calculated; (2) QOL values of SG and VAS methods based on utility theory. Results: In HD patients, SG values were significantly higher than VAS values, global score and four domains. In contrast, VAS values were about the same as psychometric scores. Pearson correlations of SG values and peychometric scores (0.10-0.20) were relatively lower than those of VAS values and psychometric scores (0.22-0.53). Associated factors of SG values were education, religion comorbidity, urea reduction rate, erythropoietin dosage, with total R 2 only 0.20. Associated factor of global QOL scores were area, comorbidity and hemoglobin level, with R 2 0.42. Associated factors of VAS values were education and family monthly income, with total R 2 0.42. Conclusion: Total QOL measures of SG, VAS, and global QOL from WHOQOL-BREF (TW) in HD patients were significantly different and their associated factors were complex.",
keywords = "Hemodialysis, Quality of life, Standard gamble, Visual analogue scale",
author = "Yang, {Shu Chang} and Wang, {Jung Der} and Wu, {Mai Szu} and Kuo, {Pei Wen} and Syi Su",
year = "2007",
month = "4",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "99--109",
journal = "台灣公共衛生雜誌",
issn = "1023-2141",
publisher = "臺灣公共衛生學會",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences between psychometric and utility measures on quality-of-life and their associated factors in hemodialysis patients

AU - Yang, Shu Chang

AU - Wang, Jung Der

AU - Wu, Mai Szu

AU - Kuo, Pei Wen

AU - Su, Syi

PY - 2007/4

Y1 - 2007/4

N2 - Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare quality-of-life (QOL) scores from WHOQOL-BERF (TW) and QOL values from the standard gamble (SG) method or visual analogue scale (VAS) method in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Comparisons were also made among associated factors of global scores, SG and VAS values. Methods: A cross sectional survey of QOL was conducted in 506 HD patients from 13 HD centers in Taipei and Keelung areas. Instruments included: (1) WHOQOL-BREF (TW) from which scores of global QOL. physical, psychological, social relationship and environment domains were calculated; (2) QOL values of SG and VAS methods based on utility theory. Results: In HD patients, SG values were significantly higher than VAS values, global score and four domains. In contrast, VAS values were about the same as psychometric scores. Pearson correlations of SG values and peychometric scores (0.10-0.20) were relatively lower than those of VAS values and psychometric scores (0.22-0.53). Associated factors of SG values were education, religion comorbidity, urea reduction rate, erythropoietin dosage, with total R 2 only 0.20. Associated factor of global QOL scores were area, comorbidity and hemoglobin level, with R 2 0.42. Associated factors of VAS values were education and family monthly income, with total R 2 0.42. Conclusion: Total QOL measures of SG, VAS, and global QOL from WHOQOL-BREF (TW) in HD patients were significantly different and their associated factors were complex.

AB - Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare quality-of-life (QOL) scores from WHOQOL-BERF (TW) and QOL values from the standard gamble (SG) method or visual analogue scale (VAS) method in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Comparisons were also made among associated factors of global scores, SG and VAS values. Methods: A cross sectional survey of QOL was conducted in 506 HD patients from 13 HD centers in Taipei and Keelung areas. Instruments included: (1) WHOQOL-BREF (TW) from which scores of global QOL. physical, psychological, social relationship and environment domains were calculated; (2) QOL values of SG and VAS methods based on utility theory. Results: In HD patients, SG values were significantly higher than VAS values, global score and four domains. In contrast, VAS values were about the same as psychometric scores. Pearson correlations of SG values and peychometric scores (0.10-0.20) were relatively lower than those of VAS values and psychometric scores (0.22-0.53). Associated factors of SG values were education, religion comorbidity, urea reduction rate, erythropoietin dosage, with total R 2 only 0.20. Associated factor of global QOL scores were area, comorbidity and hemoglobin level, with R 2 0.42. Associated factors of VAS values were education and family monthly income, with total R 2 0.42. Conclusion: Total QOL measures of SG, VAS, and global QOL from WHOQOL-BREF (TW) in HD patients were significantly different and their associated factors were complex.

KW - Hemodialysis

KW - Quality of life

KW - Standard gamble

KW - Visual analogue scale

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547331952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34547331952&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 99

EP - 109

JO - 台灣公共衛生雜誌

JF - 台灣公共衛生雜誌

SN - 1023-2141

IS - 2

ER -