ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2013
Comparison of three societally derived health-state classification values among older African Americans with depressive symptoms.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Characterizing depression and comorbid medical conditions in African American women in a primary care setting.Journal of the National Medical Association · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare societal values across three health-state classification systems in older African Americans with depression and to describe the association of these instruments to depression severity.
methodsWe summarized baseline values for EQ-5D (US weights) and HUI2/3 (Canadian weights) and their subscales for 118 older African American participants enrolled in a randomized depression treatment trial and calculated correlations between the different instruments. We evaluated ceiling and floor effects for each instrument by comparing the proportion at the highest and lowest possible score for each tool. Also, utility scores were assessed by level of depression severity (mild, moderate, moderate severe, severe) scores as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).
resultsMean utility values were 0.58 (SD = 0.21) for EQ-5D, 0.52 (SD = 0.21) for HUI2, and 0.36 (SD = 0.31) for HUI3. For the EQ-5D, 72 % of participants reported having some problems on the anxiety/depression domain. On the emotion domain for the HUI2, 23 % reported the highest level of impairment compared to only 3 % on the HUI3. No participant scored at the floor for the EQ-5D, HUI2, or HUI3 index; one participant scored at the ceiling value on the HUI3 index. Correlations ranged from 0.63 to 0.82 (all of which were significant at an alpha level of 0.05). In general, utility scores trended inversely with depression level.
conclusionSmall differences in the three preference-weighted health-state classification systems were evident for this sample of older African Americans with depressive symptoms, with HUI scores lower than EQ-5D. For this sample, utility scores were lower (i.e., poorer) than the general United States population with depression on each utility measure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.