4.6 Article

Classification and regression tree uncovered hierarchy of psychosocial determinants underlying quality-of-life response shift in HIV/AIDS

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 62, Issue 11, Pages 1138-1147

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.021

Keywords

Response shift; Health-related quality of life; Classification and regression trees; Segmentation strategies; Idiographic quality of life assessment; Rpart

Funding

  1. New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute [2X07 HA 0025-17]
  2. Weill Cornell Medical College Clinical and Translational Science Award
  3. NIH [UL1-RR024996]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Rapkin and Schwartz define response shift as otherwise unexplained, discrepant change in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) that is associated with change in cognitive appraisal. In this article, we demonstrate how a recursive partitioning (rpart) regression tree analytic approach may be used to explore cognitive changes to gain additional insight into response-shift phenomena. Study Design and Setting: Data are from the Choices in Care Study, an evaluation of HIV+ Medicaid recipients' experiences and outcomes in care (N = 394). Cognitive assessment was based on the QOL appraisal battery. HRQOL was measured by the SF-36 Health Survey, version 2 (SF-36v2). Results: We used rpart to examine 6-month change in SF-36v2 mental composite score as a function of changes in appraisal, after controlling for patient characteristics, health changes, and intervening events. Rpart identified nine distinct patterns of cognitive change, including three associated with negative discrepancies, four with positive discrepancies, and two with no discrepancies. Conclusion: Rpart classification provides a nuanced treatment of response shift. This methodology has implications for evaluating programs, guiding decisions, and targeting care. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available