4.5 Article

The impact of obesity on diabetes, hyperlipidemia and hypertension in the United States

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 1063-1071

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-008-9385-7

关键词

diabetes; health-related quality of life; hyperlipidemia; hypertension; obesity

资金

  1. Sanofi-Aventis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The prevalence of obesity and associated cardiometabolic risk factors such as diabetes, hyperlipidemia and hypertension is increasing significantly for all demographic groups. Research design and methods The 2002 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative survey of the U.S. population, was used to estimate the marginal impact of obesity on health function, perception, and preferences for individuals with diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension using multivariate regression methods controlling for age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, income, insurance, smoking status, comorbidity, and proxy response. Three different instruments were used: SF-12 physical component scale (PCS-12) and mental component scale (MCS-12); EQ-5D index and visual analogue scale (VAS). Censored least absolute deviation was used for the EQ-5D and VAS (due to censoring) and ordinary least squares (OLS) was used for the PCS-12 and MCS-12. Results After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension were associated with significantly lower scores compared to normal weight individuals without the condition for all four instruments. Obesity significantly exacerbated this association. Controlling for comorbidity attenuated the negative association of obesity and cardiometabolic risk factors on instrument scores. In addition, scores decreased for increasing weight and number of risk factors. Conclusions Obesity significantly exacerbates the deleterious association between diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension, and health function, health perception, and preference-based scores in the United States.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据