4.2 Article

Explaining differences in perceived health-related quality of life: a study within the Spanish population

Journal

GACETA SANITARIA
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages 447-453

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.05.016

Keywords

Quality of life; Health status; Population characteristics; Public health

Funding

  1. ISCIII
  2. FEDER Funds [RD12/0001/0012]
  3. ISCIII [1300648]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the burden of several determinants on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and to study its heterogeneity among the different Spanish regions. Method: Cross-sectional study. Data were obtained from the Spanish National Health Survey (2012), and HRQOL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (utility and visual analogue scale -VAS- scores). Demographic variables, physical health condition, social variables, mental health status, and lifestyle were also analysed. Tobit regression models were employed to study the relationships between expressed HRQOL and personal characteristics. Results: A total of 20,979 surveys were obtained. Of them, 62.4% expressed a utility score of 1, corresponding to perfect health (95%Cl: 61.8%-63.2%), and 54.2% showed VAS scores >= 80 (95%Cl: 53.5%-54.9%). HRQOL was mainly described as a function of age, chronic limitation in daily activities, and mental health status. Belonging to a higher-class strata and physical activity were related to better self-perceived HRQOL. Ageing worsened perceived HRQOL, but did not influence its determinants, and differences in HRQOL by regions were also not significant after model adjustment. Conclusion: HRQOL perception in the Spanish population varied slightly depending on the measure used (utilities index or VAS). Age, chronic limitations in daily life, and mental health status best explained the variability in perception, and no meaningful differences in HRQOL perception among regions were found after adjustment. (C) 2017 SESPAS. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available