Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
Tuyển tập báo cáo các nghiên cứu khoa học quốc tế ngành y học dành cho các bạn tham khảo đề tài: Reference bias: presentation of extreme health states prior to eq-vas improves health-related quality of life scores. a randomised cross-over trial | McPhail et al. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2010 8 146 http www.hqlo.eom content 8 1 146 HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES RESEARCH Open Access Reference bias presentation of extreme health states prior to eq-vas improves health-related quality of life scores. a randomised cross-over trial Steven McPhail1 2 3 Elaine Beller4 Terry Haines2 5 6 Abstract Background Clinical practice and clinical research has made a concerted effort to move beyond the use of clinical indicators alone and embrace patient focused care through the use of patient reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life. However unless patients give consistent consideration to the health states that give meaning to measurement scales used to evaluate these constructs longitudinal comparison of these measures may be invalid. This study aimed to investigate whether patients give consideration to a standard health state rating scale EQ-VAS and whether consideration of good and poor health state descriptors immediately changes their selfreport. Methods A randomised crossover trial was implemented amongst hospitalised older adults n 151 . Patients were asked to consider descriptions of extremely good Description-A and poor Description-B health states. The EQ-VAS was administered as a self-report at baseline after the first descriptors A or B then again after the remaining descriptors B or A respectively . At baseline patients were also asked if they had considered either EQ-VAS anchors. Results Overall 106 151 70 participants changed their self-evaluation by 5 points on the 100 point VAS with a mean SD change of 4.5 12 points p 0.001 . A total of 74 151 49 participants did not consider the best health VAS anchor of the 77 who did 59 77 thought the good health descriptors were more extreme better then they had previously considered. Similarly 85 151 66 participants did not consider the worst health anchor of the 66 who did 63 95 thought the poor health descriptors were more extreme worse
