Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

The Korean Society for Preventive Medicine (대한예방의학회)
권호 표지

A Trial for Development of Health Profile (KHP 1.0) to Measure the Self-Perceived Health Status of Korean

한국인의 자가평가 건강수준 측정도구(KHP 1.0) 개발

  • Yang, Jin-Sun (Public Health and Sanitation Division, Busan Metropolitan City) ;
  • Chun, Jin-Ho (Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Inje University)
  • 양진선 (부산광역시 보건위생과) ;
  • 전진호 (인제대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실)
  • Published : 2003.03.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives : The 1990s has seen advances in the conceptualization of self-perceived health status which has important roles for individual health and the quality of life. Many types of standardized questionnaires have been developed with the current wide use of SF-36, NHP, andEuroQol. However, the outcomes of these tools may be different with regard to regional, cultural and emotional backgrounds. The purpose of this study was to trial the development of a Korean Health Profile (KHP 1.0) to measure the self-perceived health stati of Koreans. Methods : The KHP 1.0 was designed on the basis of the Medical Outcome Study Form 36 (SF-36), the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), and the EuroQOL. It was composed of 9 scales; physical functioning, role limitation-physical, pain, general health, energy, social isolation, sleep, role limitation-emotional, and e-motional health. Self-reported chronic disease conditions, and the Zung's Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), were also checked for the evaluation of clinical validity. This study was conducted, from December 2000 to January 2001, on 800 middle-aged parents, with four high school students, with 100 retest sets being conducted two weeks later. From the 800 subjects there were 588 complete responses (effective response 73.5%). The reliability of the test-retest results, and the factor analysis on the validity of the KHP 1.0 components, were evaluated using the SPSS (ver 10.0) software. Results : The reliability of the KHP 1.0 was good with Cronbach's alpha (>0.6), test-retest correlation coefficients (>0.5), but with no significant differences from the paired t-test. From the psychometric validity tests, the 9 scales of the KHP 1.0 were divided into two components; physical and mental, and trimmed to the established model with 55% of the total variance, with the exception of role limitation-emotional. The clinical validity on the basis of the comparison for the four characteristic groups; healthy, physical conditions only, mental conditions only, and physical and mental conditions were also good. Conclusions : The KHP 1.0 appears to be a valid measurement tool of self-perceived health stati of Koreans, although there are limitations, i.e. sample size was too small, a limited number of middle-aged subjects, and it was based on unconfirmed diagnoses, etc. Therefore, further study is required to standardize the assessment.

Keywords

References

  1. Hall JA, Epstein AM, McNeil BJ. Multidimensionality of health status in an elderly population. Construct validity of a measurement battery. Med Care 1989; 27(3 Suppl): 168-177 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198903001-00014
  2. Ware JE, Comments on the Use of Health Status Assessment in Clinical Settings, Med Care 1992; 30(5), Supplement
  3. Krause NM, Jay GM. What do global selfrated health items measure? Med Care 1994; 32(9): 930-942 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199409000-00004
  4. URL:http://www.st-36.com
  5. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Backett EM, Williams J, Papp E. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1980; 34(4): 281-286 https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.34.4.281
  6. Jenkinson C. Why are we weighting? A critical examination of the use of item weights in a health status measure. Soc Sci Med 1991; 32(12): 1413-1416 https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(91)90202-N
  7. Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, ArgyleM. The Nottingham Health Profile: an analysis of its sensitivity in differentiating illness groups. Soc Sci Med 1988; 27(12): 1411-1414 https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(88)90207-9
  8. Landgraf JM, Nelson EC. Summaryof the WONCA/COOP International Health Assessment Field Trial. The Dartmouth COOP Primary Care Network. Aust Fam Physician 1992; 21(3): 255-7, 260-2, 266-269
  9. Ware JE. Measuring patients' views: the optimum outcome measure. BMJ 1993 ; 29; 306(6890): 1429-1430
  10. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31(3): 247-263 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199303000-00006
  11. Ware JE Jr , Hays RD. Methods for measuring patient satisfaction with specific medical encounters. Med Care 1988; 26(4): 393-402 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198804000-00008
  12. Gandek B, Ware JE Jr, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Apolone G, BjornerJ, BrazierJ, Bullinger M, FukuharaS, KaasaS, Leplege A, Sullivan M.Testsof data quality,scaling assumptions, and reliability of the SF-36 in eleven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment
  13. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr. Construction and validation of an alternate form general mental health scale for the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey. Med Care 1995; 33(1): 1528
  14. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE.The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31(3):247-263 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199303000-00006
  15. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JF. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and longform health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 1992; 30(5 Suppl): MS253-265
  16. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney CA, Rogers WH, Raczek A. Comparison of methods for the scoringand statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 1995 Apr; 33(4 Suppl): AS264-279
  17. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney CA, Rogers WH, Raczek A. Comparison of methods for the scoringand statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: Med Care 1995; 33(4Suppl): AS264-279
  18. Ferketich SL, Figueredo AJ, Knapp TR. The multitrait-multimethod approach to construct validity. Res Nurs Health 1991; 14(4): 315-320 https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770140410
  19. Lowe NK, Ryan-Wenger NM. Beyond Campbell and Fiske: assessment of convergent and discriminant validity. Res Nurs Health 1992 Feb; 15(1):67-75. Review https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770150110
  20. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. TheMOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and itemselection. MedCare 1992 Jun; 30(6):473-483 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002
  21. The EuroQol Group, EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of healthrelated quality of life. Health Policy 1990 Dec; 16(3): 199-208 https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
  22. Carr-Hill RA. Healthrelated qualityof life measurement--Euro style. Health Policy 1992; 20(3): 321-8;discussion 329-332 https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(92)90165-8
  23. Dolan P. Search for a critical appraisal of EuroQol: a response by the EuroQol group to Gafni and Birch. Health Policy 1994; 28(1): 676-679
  24. Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Is the EuroQol a valid measure of health-related quality of life after stroke? Stroke. 1997 Oct; 28(10): 1876-1882 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.28.10.1876
  25. Fielding R, Li J. Avalidation ofthe concept of current perceived health and the Current Perceived Health-42 (CPH-42) questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1997; 6(1): 35-42
  26. Li J, Fielding R. The measurement of current perceived health among Chinese people in Guangzhou and Hong Kong, southern China. Qual Life Res 1995; 4(3): 271-278 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02260866
  27. Ho Seong Moon, Seung Yong Shin, Yeon Su Lee, Ki Woo Kwak. Effectiveness of Korean Version of the Nottingham Health Profile. J Korean Acad Fam Med 1993; 14(11): 699-708 (Korean)
  28. Sang Baek Koh, Sei Jin Chang, Myung Geun Kang, Bong Suk Cha, Jong Ku Park. Reliability and validity on measurement instruments for health status assessment in occupational workers. Korean J Prev Med 1997; 30(2): 251-266(Korean)
  29. Sung Hee Lee, Ester Lyuh, Tai Woo Yoo. Studyfor development of korean version of COOP/WONCA charts. J Korean Acad Fam Med 1995; 16(10): 684-691 (Korean)
  30. Parkerson GR Jr, Broadhead WE, Tse CK. The Duke Health Profile. A 17-item measure of health and dysfunction. Med Care 1990; 28(11): 1056-72 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199011000-00007
  31. Parkerson GR Jr, Willke RJ, Hays RD. An international comparison of the reliability and responsiveness of the Duke Health Profilefor measuring health-related quality of life of patientstreatedwith alprostadil for erectile dysfunction. Med Care 1999; 37(1): 56-67 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199901000-00009
  32. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: developmentand final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19(8): 787-805 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198108000-00001
  33. Apolone G, Mosconi P. The Italian SF-36 Health Survey: translation, validation and norming. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(11): 1025-1036 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00094-8
  34. Wagner AK, Gandek B, Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bullinger M,BjornerJ, Fukuhara S, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Sullivan M, WoodDauphinee S, Ware JE Jr. Cross-cultural comparisons of the content of SF-36 translations across 10 countries. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(11): 9259-9262
  35. Persson LO, Karlsson J, Bengtsson C, Steen B, Sullivan M. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey II. Evaluation of clinical validity: results from population studies of elderly and women in Gothenborg. J Clin Epidemiol 1998 Nov; 5I(1I): 1095-1 103 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00101-2
  36. Perneger TV, Leplege A, Etter JF, Rougemont A. Validation of a Frenchlanguage version of the MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in young healthy adults. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48(8): 105I-1060 https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00227-H
  37. FukuharaS, WareJE Jr, Kosinski M, Wada S, Gandek B. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity of the Japanese SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998 ; 51(11): 1045-1053 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00096-1
  38. Gande kB, Ware JE,J ClinEpidemiol 1998 40. BrazierJ, Usherwood T, HarperR, Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single indexfrom the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(11): 1115-1128 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00103-6
  39. Gande KB, WareJE, J Clin Epidemiol 1998
  40. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single indexfrom the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(11): 1115-1128 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00103-6
  41. Holmes We. A short, psychiatric, casefinding measure for HIV seropositive outpatients: performance characteristics of the 5-itemmental healthsubscale of the SF20 in a male, seropositive sample. Med Care 1998; 36(2): 237-243 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199802000-00012
  42. Berwick OM. Controlling variation in health care: a consultation from Walter Shewhart. Med Care 1991; 29(12): 1212-1225 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199112000-00004
  43. Stewart AL.,Ware JE. Measuring funcitonng and Well-being: The Medical Outcome Study Approach. Durham, NC: Duke university Press 1992
  44. Mangione CM, Seddon JM, Cook EF, Krug JH Jr, Sahagian CR, Campion EW, Glynn RJ. Correlates of cognitive function scores in elderly outpatients. JAm Geriatr Soc 1993; 41(5): 491-497 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1993.tb01883.x
  45. 이홍재. 일부농촌과 도시 거주민의 보건행태의 차이에 관한연구, 서울대학교보건대학원 석사논문, 1994
  46. Ruffing-Rahal MA, Barin LJ, Combs CJ. Gender role orientation as a correlate of perceived health, health behavior, and qualitative well-being in older women. J WomenAging 1998; 10(1): 3-19 https://doi.org/10.1300/J074v10n01_02
  47. Mangione CM, Seddon JM, Cook EF, Krug JH Jr, Sahagian CR, Campion EW, Glynn RJ. Correlates of cognitive function scores in elderly outpatients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1993; 4(5): 491-497
  48. Hoeymans N, Feskens EJ, van den Bos GA, Kromhout D. Age, time, and cohort effects on functional status and self-rated health in elderly men. Am J Public Health 1997; 87(10): 1620-1625 https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.87.10.1620
  49. Hoeymans N, Feskens EJ, Kromhout D, van den Bos GA. Ageing and the relationship between functional status and selfrated health in elderly men. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45(10): 1527-1536 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00089-0
  50. Shadbolt B. Some correlates of self-rated health for Australian women. Am J Public Health 1997; 87(6): 951-956 https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.951
  51. Cockerham WC, Sharp K, Wilcox JA. Aging and perceived health status. J Gerontal 1983; 38(3): 349-355
  52. Jylha M, Leskinen E, Alanen E, Leskinen AL, Heikkinen E. Self-rated health and associated factors among men of different ages. J Gerontol 1986; 41(6): 710-717
  53. Carlson P. Self-perceived health in East and West Europe: another European health divide. Soc Sci Med 1998; 46(10): 1355-1366 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(97)10093-4
  54. Stronks K, van de Mheen H, van den Bos J, Mackenbach JP. The interrelationship between income, health and employment status. Int J Epidemiol 1997; 26(3): 592-600 https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/26.3.592