ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2020
Trend in health-related quality of life and health utility and their decrements due to non-communicable diseases and risk factors: analysis of four population-based surveys between 1998 and 2015.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- A study of Filipina migrant workers' subjective health in Hong Kong and an assessment of eight scoring methods for the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12).Frontiers in sociology · 2024Article
- The trend in quality of life of Chinese population: analysis based on population health surveys from 2008 to 2020.BMC public health · 2023Article
- The Chinese version of the Quality of Life in Childhood Epilepsy Questionnaire-16-C (QOLCE-16-C): translation, validity, and reliability.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo revisit the population norms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health utility for the Hong Kong general population, compare these scores over past health surveys, and assess the association of scores with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and their risk factors.
methodsHRQoL data measured by the standard Short Form 12 Health Survey-version 2 (SF-12v2) were extracted from the surveys in 1998, 2003/2004, 2008/2009 and 2014/2015. SF-12v2 data were mapped to the Short-form 6-dimension (SF-6D) preference-based measure to generate the health utility scores. Population weighting based on the sex and age in the second quarter of 2015 was applied when generating population normative values. Linear regression models were fitted to assess the effect of the number of NCDs and modifiable lifestyle factors on HRQoL and health utility.
resultsThe general population mean scores of SF-12v2 domains and SF-6D in 2014/15 were higher compared to past surveys. Linear increases in General Health, Vitality and Mental Health domains were observed from 1998 to 2014/15. More doctor-diagnosed NCDs, insufficient physical activity and fruit/vegetable consumption, poor sleep quality and insufficient or excessive amount of sleep (< 6/≥ 10 h) were all associated with worse physical- and mental-related HRQoL and health utility.
conclusionThis study compared HRQoL and health utility in the Hong Kong general population derived from multiple surveys and found an improving trend over twenty years. More NCDs were associated with worse HRQoL. It is suggested that promoting adequate physical activity, consumption of fruit/vegetable and 6-9 h of sleep could improve health.
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.