Use of a Functional Status Instrument in the Danish Health Study

  • N. Bentzen
  • K. M. Pedersen
  • T. Christiansen
Part of the Frontiers of Primary Care book series (PRIMARY)


To make sound decisions about the allocation of resources in the health care sector, it is important to obtain relevant knowledge about the incidence and prevalence of health problems in the population and the consequences of these problems in terms of use of resources and of personal discomfort. Fur­thermore, it is desirable that use of resources is related to course of treatment for a given illness, as opposed to being associated with each single contact to health providers or with bed-days. Moreover, it is desirable to be able to measure the effect of health care services on the health status of the target group.


Health Status Health Perception Treatment Episode Health Status Measure Sickness Impact Profile 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Becker GS. A theory of the allocation of time. Econ J 75: 495–517, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grossman M. The demand for health: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Ocassional paper, NBER; New York; 1972: 119.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams A. Welfare economics and health status measurement. Publ Hlth Rep 82: 271–282, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manning WG, Newhouse JP, Ware JE. The status of health in demand estimation: or beyond excellent, good, fair, poor, In Fuchs VR (ed); Economic Aspects of Health, pp. 143–184, Chicago, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sintonen H. An Approach to Economic Evaluation of Actions for Health. Helsinki, Finland: 1981. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Research Department.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pedersen KM, Petersen PE. The demand for dental care among industrial workers: Construction and testing of a structural model. In: Working papers No. 6/1980, Institute of Social Science; Odense University, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ware JE, Book RH, Davies AR, Lohr KN. Choosing Measures of health status for individuals in general populations. Am J Publ Hlth 71 (6): 620–625, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The World Health Organization Constitution. Geneva; 1948.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roghman KJ, Haggerty RJ. Family stress and the use of health services. Int J Epidemiol 1 (3): 279–286, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilson BS, Bergner M, Bobitt RA, Carter WB. The Sickness Impact Profile: Final development and testing. Discussion Paper No 14, Center for Health Services Research, November 1979. (See Med. Care 19(8):787–805, 1981 for a reproduction of the main part of the discussion paper).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brook RH, Ware JE Jr, Davies-Avery A, et al. Overview of adult health status measures fielded in Rand’s Health Insurance Study. Med Care 17 (7): 1–129, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brook RH, Ware JE, et al. (in various order in various volumes). Conceptualization and measurement of health for adults. In: The Health Insurance Study; Vols. I—VII, 1979–1980; Rand Corporation; Santa Monica, Calif.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bentzen N, Christiansen T, Pedersen KM. Duration of character of illness and treatment episodes in the Danish population related to health status, socioeconomic conditions and regional supply of health services: A pilot study [in Danish]. , Denmark; August 1981 (Unpublished data).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andersen EB, Sßrensen SL. Measurement of psychological vulnerability. An analysis of certain characteristics of the vulnerability test [in Danish]. Research report No. 58: Dept. of Statistics; 1979; University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kühl P-H, Martini S. Psychologically vulnerable persons, their social-and living conditions [in Danish]. Publ. No. 102: The National Institute of Social Research, Copenhagen; 1981.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stouffer SA, Guttman L, Suchman EA, Lazarsfeld PF, Star SA, Clausen JA. Measurement and prediction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1950 (Republished Wiley and Sons; 1966).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bentzen N, Christiansen T, Pedersen KM. Measurement of health status in a general population survey: Choice of instrument. Issues in scaling. Occasional Papers, Dept. of Public Finance and Policy: Odense University; 1985: 19.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bentzen N, Christiansen T, Pedersen KM. The Danish Health Study. Design, questionnaire, health diary, validation and frequency distributions. Occasional paper, Odense University; 1988: 3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Bentzen
  • K. M. Pedersen
  • T. Christiansen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations