Quality of Life Research

, 16:593

What drives older women’s perceptions of health-related quality of life?

Original Paper



Age-related differences in the way ratings of health related quality of life (HRQL) are produced are poorly understood, especially for older women.


To examine age differences in critical dimensions of HRQL among older women using structural equation modelling. We hypothesized that physical, mental and social health domains would exert weaker total effects on HRQL among older middle-aged versus much older women.


A model of HRQL was developed and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the structure of the model across two samples of community-dwelling women aged 55 years and older. The relationships between the constructs and the relative magnitude of direct and indirect effects on HRQL were evaluated in a series of path models, with women younger and older than age 70 tested separately.


The CFA model of HRQL showed excellent fit in both the national and verification samples (RMSEA 0.04 and 0.02 respectively). In the path model, the total effects of physical, mental and social health on general perceptions of HRQL were greater and more significant in middle-aged versus older women (beta coefficients 0.810, 0.277, 0.266, all P < 0.05 versus, 0.700, 0.189, and 0.057, P < 0.05 for physical and mental health only respectively).


This HRQL model suggests different opportunities for intervention among older women to improve the outcomes along the path to HRQL.


Health related quality of life Older women Health ICF Structural equation modelling 


  1. 1.
    Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 59–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ustun, T. B., Chatterji, S., Bickenbach, J., Kostanjsek, N., & Schneider, M. (2003). The international classification of functioning, disability and health: A new tool for understanding disability and health. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 565–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. (2002). Beginner’s guide. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sullivan, M. D., Kempen, I. J. M., Van Sonderen, E., & Ormet, J. (2000). Models of quality of life in a population of community-dwelling Dutch elderly. Quality of Life Research, 9, 801–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson, R. J., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1993). The structure of health status among older adults: Disease, disability, functional limitation, and perceived health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34, 105–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jans, L., & Stoddard, S. (1999). Chartbook on women and disability in the United States. An InfoUse Report. Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manton, G., Corder, L., & Stallard, E. (1997). Chronic disability trends in elderly United States populations: 1982–994. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 94, 2593–598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newman, A. B. (1999) Cognition and frailty in older women: Socioeconomic and physiologic influences. In R. B. Ness & L. H. Kuller (Eds.), Health and disease among women: Biological and environmental influences (pp. 86–11). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hopman, W. M., Towheed, T., Anastasssiades, T. et al. (2000). Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 163, 265–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jenkinson, C., Stewart-Brown, S., Petersen, S., & Paice, C. (1999). Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53, 45–0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware, J. E. Jr., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sullivan, M., & Karlsson, J. (1998). The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey III. Evaluation of criterion-based validity: Results from normative population. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1105–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aaronson, N. K., Muller, M., Cohen, P. D. A., Essink-Bot, M. L., Fekkes, M., Sanderman, R. et al. (1989). Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1055–068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Idler, E. L. (2003). Discussion: Gender differences in self-rated health in mortality and in the relationship between the two. The Gerontologist, 43, 372–75.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, Y. (2000). The predictive value of self assessed general physical and mental health on functional decline and mortality in older adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54, 123–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Idler, E., & Binyamini Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 21–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Helmer, C., Barberger-Gateau, P., Letenneur, L., & Dartigues, J. F. (1999). Subjective health and mortality in French elderly women and men. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B. Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 54, S84–S92.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deeg, D. J. H., & Kriegsman, D. M. W. (2003). Concepts of self-rated health: Specifying the gender difference in mortality risk. The Gerontologist, 43, 376–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Power, C., Matthews, S., & Manor, O. (1998). Ineqalities in self-rated health: Explanations from different stages of life. Lancet, 351, 1009–014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology: Theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 471–07.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rothermund, K., & Brandtstadter, J. (2003). Coping with deficits and losses in later life: From compensatory action to accommodation. Psychology and Aging, 18, 896–05.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Turk-Charles, S., Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and emotional memory: The forgettable nature of negative images for older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 132, 310–24.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heckhausen, J., & Brim, O. G. (1997). Perceived problems for self and others: Self-protection by social downgrading throughout adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 12, 610–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tannenbaum, C., Mayo, N., & Ducharme, F. (2005). Older women’s health priorities and perceptions of care delivery: Results of the WOW health survey. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 173, 153–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tannenbaum, C., & Mayo, N. (2003). Women’s health priorities and perceptions of care: A survey to identify opportunities for improving preventative health care delivery for older women. Age Ageing, 32, 626–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Madden, R., Choi C., & Sykes C. (2003). The ICF as a framework for national data: The introduction of ICF into Australian data dictionaries. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 676–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Ewert, T., Amman, E., Kollerits, B., Chatterji, S., Ustun, T. B., & Stucki, G. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34, 205–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mayo, N. E., Goldberg, M., & Kind, P. (1997). Performance of the Euroqol EQ-5D in a Canadian population. Discussion paper, EuroQol plenary meeting Rotterdam, 2– October 1997.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kind, P. (1996). The EurolQol Instrument: An index of health-related quality of life. In Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Ed: Spilker B. Lippincott-Raven.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Keller, S. D., Ware, J. E., Bentler, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., et al. (1998). Use of structural equation modeling to test the construct validity of the SF-36 health survey in ten countries: Results from the IQOLA Project. Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wood-Dauphinee, S. L., Opzoomer, M. A., Williams, J. I., Marchand, B., & Spitzer, W.O. (1988). Assessment of global function: The reintegration to normal living index. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 69, 83–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wood-Dauphinee, S., & Williams, J. I. (1987). Reintegration to normal living as a proxy to quality of life. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 491–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Finch, E., Brooks, D., Stratford, P. W., & Mayo, N. E. (Eds). (2002). Physical rehabilitation outcome measures: A guide to enhanced clinical decision making (2nd ed.). Canadian Physiotherapy Association.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Keller, H. H., Hedley, M. R., & Wong Brownlee, S. (2000). The development of seniors in the community: Risk evaluation for eating and nutrition (SCREEN). Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research, 61, 67–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Keller, H. H., McKenzie, J. D., & Goy, R. E. (2001). Construct validation and test-retest reliability of the seniors in the community: Risk evaluation for eating and nutrition questionnaire. The Journals of Gerontology. Series A. Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 56A, M552–M558.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hayduk L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and advances. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling : Concepts, issues, and application. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kaplan, D. (1955). Structural equation modeling : Foundations and extensions. Thosand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bollen K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural models. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventionals criteria versus new alternatives. Stuctural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jöreskog K. G., & Sörbom D. (1996). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Illinois: Scientific Software International Inc.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Johnson, R. J., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1994). Gender, race, and health: The structure of health status among older adults. The Gerontologist, 34, 24–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fylkesnes, K., & Forde, O. H. (1992). Determinants and dimensions involved in self-evaluation of health. Social Science and Medicine, 35, 271–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fayers, P. M. (2004). Quality-of-life measurement in clinical trials–the impact of causal variables. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 14, 155–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MontrealMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of Medicine and the School of Physical and Occupational TherapyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Centre de Recherche de l’Institut universitaire de geriatrie de MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations