4.6 Article

Health profiles and health preferences of dialysis patients

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 86-92

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/17.1.86

关键词

haemodialysis; health-related quality of life; health status; peritoneal dialysis; preference measurements

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has been assessed with health profiles and health preferences methods. Few studies have used both types of HRQOL instruments. The main objective of this study was to assess the relationship between information from the two types of HRQOL instruments in dialysis patients. Methods. We interviewed 135 patients, using two health profiles (Short Form 36 and EuroQol,EQ-5D) and two health preferences methods (Standard Gamble and Time Trade Off). Socio-demographic, clinical, and treatment-related background data were collected from patient charts and during the interview. Relationships between the outcome measures were assessed with Pearson correlation coefficients. Multiple regression models were used to study the relationship or HRQOL outcomes to background variables. Results. The HRQOL of dialysis patients as measured with health profiles was severely impaired. The health preferences scores were higher (0.82-0.89) than scores previously reported in the literature. Correlations between health profiles and health preferences were poor to modest. HRQOL outcomes were poorly explained by background characteristics. Differences between HD and PD groups could not be demonstrated. Conclusions. Health profiles and health preferences represent different aspects of HRQOL. An impaired health status may not be reflected in the preference scores. Coping strategies and other attitudes towards health may affect the preference scores more than they influence health profile outcomes. The added value of health preferences methods in clinical research is limited.

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

4.6
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