4.5 Article

Probabilities of transition among health states for older adults

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 431-442

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1012566130639

关键词

aged; clinical trials; cost-benefit; discounting; health status; healthy life expectancy; QALY; survival

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [N01-HC-85079, N01-HC-85086, HL 15103, HL 35129] Funding Source: Medline
  2. DIVISION OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND CLINICAL APPLICATIONS [N01HC085086, N01HC085079] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [P60HL015103] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Goal: To estimate the probabilities of transition among self-rated health states for older adults, and examine how they vary by age and sex. Methods: We used self-rated health (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor, dead) collected in two longitudinal studies of older adults (mean age 75) to estimate the probability of transition in 2 years. We used the estimates to project future health for selected cohorts. Findings: These older adults were most likely to be in the same health state 2 years later, but a substantial proportion changed in both directions. Transition probabilities varied by initial health state, age and sex. Men were more likely than women to transition to excellent or dead. Women were more likely than men to transition to good or fair health. Although women aged 70 will have more years of life and more years of healthy life than men, they also have more years of unhealthy life, and the proportion of remaining life that is healthy is slightly higher for men. When observed and predicted years of healthy life (YHL) were compared in various subgroups, the YHL of persons with less favorable baseline characteristics was lower than predicted, and vice-versa. Differences, however, were small (about 5%). Conclusions: These transition probability estimates can be used to predict the future health of individuals or groups as a function of current age, sex, and self-rated 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

4.5
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