4.3 Article

Health-Related Quality of Life Among US Veterans and Civilians by Race and Ethnicity

期刊

PREVENTING CHRONIC DISEASE
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CENTERS DISEASE CONTROL
DOI: 10.5888/pcd9.110138

关键词

-

资金

  1. appointment to the Research Participation Program for CDC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Among veterans, having been selected into the military and having easy access to medical care during and after military service may reduce premature mortality but not morbidity from mental distress and may not improve health-related quality of life. The objective of this study was to determine whether veterans in different racial/ethnic groups differ in their health-related quality of life from each other and from their civilian counterparts. Methods Among 800,000 respondents to the 2007-2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys, approximately 110,000 identified themselves as veterans and answered questions about their sociodemographic characteristics, self-rated health, and recent health-related quality of life. Nonoverlapping 95% confidence intervals of means distinguished veterans and civilians of different racial/ethnic groups. Results Veteran and civilian American Indians/Alaska Natives reported more physically unhealthy days, mentally unhealthy days, and recent activity limitation days than their veteran and civilian counterparts in other racial/ethnic groups. Non -Hispanic white veterans and Hispanic veterans reported more physically unhealthy days, mentally unhealthy days, and recent activity limitation days than their civilian counterparts. Conclusion Unlike findings in other studies, our findings show that veterans' health-related quality of life differs from that of civilians both within the same racial/ethnic group and among different racial/ethnic groups. Because once-healthy soldiers may not be as healthy when they return to civilian life, assessing their health-related quality of life over time may identify those who need help to regain their health.

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

4.3
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