4.6 Article

Which chronic conditions are associated with better or poorer quality of life?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 53, 期 9, 页码 895-907

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00204-3

关键词

quality of life; health status; functioning; chronic disease; comparison

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the present study is to compare the QL of a wide range of chronic disease patients. Secondary analysis of eight existing data sets, including over 15,000 patients, was performed. The studies were conducted between 1993 and 1996 and included population-based samples, referred samples, consecutive samples, and/or consecutive samples. The SF-36 or SF-24 were employed as generic QL instruments. Patients who were older, female, had a low level of education, were not living with a partner, and had at least one comorbid condition, in general, reported the poorest level of QL. On the basis of rank ordering across the QL dimensions, three broad categories could be distinguished. Urogenital conditions, hearing impairments, psychiatric disorders, and dermatologic conditions were found to result in relatively favorable functioning. A group of disease clusters assuming an intermediate position encompassed cardiovascular conditions, cancer, endocrinologic conditions, visual impairments, and chronic respiratory diseases. Gastrointestinal conditions, cerebrovascular/neurologic conditions, renal diseases, and musculoskeletal conditions led to the most adverse sequelae. This categorization reflects the combined result of the diseases and comorbid conditions. If these results are replicated and validated in future studies, they can be considered in addition to information on the prevalence of the diseases, potential benefits of care, and current disease-specific expenditures. This combined information will help to better plan and allocate resources for research, training, and health care. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

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