Using Item Response Theory to Analyze the Relationship Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Health Risk Factors
2009

Analyzing Health-Related Quality of Life Using Item Response Theory

Sample size: 3999 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Jiang Yongwen, Hesser Jana Earl

Primary Institution: Rhode Island Department of Health

Hypothesis

How can multiple correlated outcomes be used to establish an overall assessment of health risk?

Conclusion

The study found that lower income, unemployment, smoking, lack of exercise, asthma, obesity, and disability are strong predictors of poor health-related quality of life.

Supporting Evidence

  • 14.8% of participants reported poor or fair general health.
  • Women had significantly worse health-related quality of life compared to men.
  • Lower income was associated with poorer health-related quality of life.
  • Unemployed individuals reported significantly worse health-related quality of life.
  • Current smokers had significantly worse health-related quality of life.
  • Individuals with asthma or diabetes were more likely to report poor health-related quality of life.
  • Obese individuals reported poorer health-related quality of life compared to non-obese individuals.
  • Disabled individuals had significantly worse health-related quality of life.

Takeaway

This study looked at how different health factors affect people's quality of life and found that things like not having a job or being overweight can make people feel worse.

Methodology

The study used item response theory to analyze data from the 2004 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in Rhode Island.

Potential Biases

Potential biases may arise from self-reported data.

Limitations

The study's findings may not be generalizable beyond the Rhode Island population.

Participant Demographics

Participants were adults aged 18 and older from Rhode Island, with a diverse representation of income, employment status, and health conditions.

Statistical Information

P-Value

<0.001

Confidence Interval

95% CI for various parameters reported in the study.

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication