Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 15, Issue 8, pp 1403–1414 | Cite as

The Impact of 29 Chronic Conditions on Health-related Quality of Life: A General Population Survey in Finland Using 15D and EQ-5D

  • Samuli I. Saarni
  • Tommi Härkänen
  • Harri Sintonen
  • Jaana Suvisaari
  • Seppo Koskinen
  • Arpo Aromaa
  • Jouko Lönnqvist
Brief communication

Abstract

Background

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an essential outcome of health care, but there is no gold standard of HRQoL measurement. We investigated the impact of major chronic conditions on HRQoL using 15D and EQ-5D in a representative sample of Finns.

Methods

Information on chronic somatic conditions was obtained by interviews. Psychiatric disorders were diagnosed using a structured interview (M-CIDI). Tobit and CLAD regression analysis was used to estimate the impact of conditions on HRQoL at the individual and population level.

Main results

Adjusted for other conditions and sociodemographic variables, Parkinson’s disease had the largest negative impact on HRQoL at the individual level, followed by anxiety disorders, depressive disorders and arthrosis of the hip and knee. Based on prevalence, arthrosis of the hip or knee, depression, back problems and urinary incontinence caused the greatest loss of HRQoL at the population level. The results obtained with the two HRQoL measures differed markedly for some conditions and the EQ-5D results also varied with the regression method used.

Conclusions

Musculoskeletal disorders are associated with largest losses of HRQoL in the Finnish population, followed by psychiatric conditions. Different HRQoL measures may systematically emphasize different conditions.

Keywords

Chronic conditions Health surveys Health utility Quality of life Quality-adjusted life years 

Abbreviations

CLAD

Censored least absolute deviations

DSM-IV

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition

HRQoL

Health-related quality of life

HUI

Health Utilities Index

M-CIDI

Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview

QALY

Quality-adjusted life year

YLD

Years lived with disability

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

SIS received grants from the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation, the Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation and the Finnish Medical Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Bowling A (1996) The effects of illness on quality of life: Findings from a survey of households in Great Britain. J Epidemiol Community Health 50: 149–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tengs TO, Wallace A. (2000) One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 38: 583–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V (2005) A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care 43: 736–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aromaa A, Koskinen S (eds). (2004) Health and Functional Capacity in Finland. Baseline Results of the Health 2000 Health Examination Survey, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    OECD (1982) The OECD List of Social Indicators. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pirkola SP, Isometsa E, Suvisaari J, et al. (2005) DSM-IV mood-, anxiety- and alcohol use disorders and their comorbidity in the Finnish general population results from the Health 2000 Study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 40: 1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wittchen HU, Lachner G, Wunderlich U, et al. (1998) Test–retest reliability of the computerized DSM-IV version of the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI). Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 33: 568–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn. Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 1994Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brooks R. (1996) EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy 37: 53–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rabin R, de Charro F. (2001) EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 33: 337–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK Population Norms for EQ-5D. In: Discussion Paper 172. University of York: The Centre for Health Economics, 1999Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. (1996) The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Econ 5: 141–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35: 1095–1108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, et al. (2002) Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. Br Med J 324: 1417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sintonen H (1994) The 15D Measure of Health Related Quality of Life: Reliability, Validity and Sensitivity of its Health State Descriptive System. Working Paper 41. Centre for Health Program Evaluation Monash University, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sintonen H. (1995) The 15D Measure of Health Related Quality of Life. II Feasibility, Reliability and Validity of its Valuation System. Working Paper 42. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sintonen H (2001) The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Ann Med 33: 328–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. (2001) A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 33: 358–370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stavem K, Bjornaes H, Lossius MI. (2001) Properties of the 15D and EQ-5D utility measures in a community sample of people with epilepsy. Epilepsy Res 44: 179–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tobin J. (1958) Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 26: 24–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Austin PC, Escobar M, Kopec JA (2000) The use of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status. Qual Life Res 9: 901–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cong R. Marginal effects for the tobit model. Stata Tech Bull 2000; 56: 27–34Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Austin PC (2002) A comparison of methods for analyzing health-related quality-of-life measures. Value Health 5: 329–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clarke P, Gray A, Holman R. (2002) Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Decis Making 22: 340–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dolan P (2000) The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP (eds), Handbook of Health Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1723–1760Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Austin PC (2002) Bayesian extensions of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status. Med Decis Making 22: 152–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wooldridge JM. Corner solution outcomes and censored regression models. In: Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2002: 517–549Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ruud PA (1984) Tests of Specification in Econometrics. Econ Rev 3: 211–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holden D (2004) Testing the normality assumption in the Tobit model. J Appl Stat 31: 521–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Powell J (1984) Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model. J Econ 25: 303–325Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ohinmaa A, Sintonen H. Inconsistencies and modelling of the Finnish EuroQol (EQ-5D) preference values. In: Greiner W, Graf V, Schulenburg J-M, et al. (eds), Plenary Meeting Hannover 1998, 1st-2nd October, Discussion Papers. Hannover: Uni-Verlag Witte; 1999: 57–74Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    STATA (2003) Users Guide Release 8. Stata Press, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Migon HS, Gamerman D. Statistical Inference: An Integrated Approach: Arnold, 1999Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schultz SE, Kopec JA (2003) Impact of chronic conditions. Health Rep 14: 41–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson JA, Ohinmaa A, Murti B, et al. (2000) Comparison of Finnish and U.S.-based visual analog scale valuations of the EQ-5D measure. Med Decis Making 20: 281–289PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sintonen H, Weijnen T, Nieuwenhuizen M, et al. (2003) Comparison of EQ-5D valuations: Analysis of background variables. In: Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F (eds), The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status using EQ-5D: A European Perspective. Evidence from the EuroQoL BIOMED Research Programme. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 81–101Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Macran S, Weatherly H, Kind P (2003) Measuring population health: A comparison of three generic health status measures. Med Care 41: 218–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Johnson JA, Coons SJ (1998) Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res 7: 155–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Johnson JA, Pickard AS (2000) Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care 38: 115–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2001) Health-related quality of life by disease and socio-economic group in the general population in Sweden. Health Policy 55: 51–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2001) Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 10: 621–635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mittmann N, Trakas K, Risebrough N, et al. (1999) Utility scores for chronic conditions in a community-dwelling population. Pharmacoeconomics 15: 369–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Manuel DG, Schultz SE, Kopec JA. (2002) Measuring the health burden of chronic disease and injury using health adjusted life expectancy and the Health Utilities Index. J Epidemiol Community Health 56: 843–850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. (1993) The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: Initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 13: 89–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lubetkin EI, Jia H, Franks P, et al. (2005) Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: Examining the EQ-5D in the U.S. General Population. Qual Life Res 14: 2187–2196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Murray CJ, Lopez AD (eds) (1996) The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability From Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020. Harvard University Press, Boston, MassGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    WHO. The World Health Report 2001: Mental Health: New Understanding. New Hope: World Health Organization, 2001Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Melse JM, Essink-Bot ML, Kramers PG, et al. (2000) A national burden of disease calculation: Dutch disability-adjusted life-years. Dutch Burden of Disease Group. Am J Public Health 90: 1241–1247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kohn R, Saxena S, Levav I, et al. (2004) The treatment gap in mental health care. Bull World Health Organ 82: 858–866PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Colman SS, Brod M, Potter LP, et al. (2004) Cross-sectional 7-year follow-up of anxiety in primary care patients. Depress Anxiety 19: 105–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuli I. Saarni
    • 1
  • Tommi Härkänen
    • 2
  • Harri Sintonen
    • 3
  • Jaana Suvisaari
    • 1
  • Seppo Koskinen
    • 2
  • Arpo Aromaa
    • 2
  • Jouko Lönnqvist
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mental Health and Alcohol ResearchNational Public Health InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Health and Functional CapacityNational Public Health InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Department of Public HealthUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations