Fortin Martin, Hudon Catherine, Dubois Marie-France, Almirall José, Lapointe Lise, Soubhi Hassan
Department of Family Medicine, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, Que, Canada.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005 Nov 23;3:74. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-74.
Measures of multimorbidity are often applied to source data, populations or outcomes outside the scope of their original developmental work. As the development of a multimorbidity measure is influenced by the population and outcome used, these influences should be taken into account when selecting a multimorbidity index. The aim of this study was to compare the strength of the association of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) with three multimorbidity indices: the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), the Charlson index (Charlson) and the Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI). The first two indices were not developed in light of HRQOL.
We used data on chronic diseases and on the SF-36 questionnaire assessing HRQOL of 238 adult primary care patients who participated in a previous study. We extracted all the diagnoses for every patient from chart review to score the CIRS, the FCI and the Charlson. Data for potential confounders (age, sex, self-perceived economic status and self-perceived social support) were also collected. We calculated the Pearson correlation coefficients (r) of the SF-36 scores with the three measures of multimorbidity, as well as the coefficient of determination, R2, while controlling for confounders.
The r values for the CIRS (range: -0.55 to -0.18) were always higher than those for the FCI (-0.47 to -0.10) and Charlson (-0.31 to -0.04) indices. The CIRS explained the highest percent of variation in all scores of the SF-36, except for the Mental Component Summary Score where the variation was not significant. Variations explained by the FCI were significant in all scores of SF-36 measuring physical health and in two scales evaluating mental health. Variations explained by the Charlson were significant in only three scores measuring physical health.
The CIRS is a better choice as a measure of multimorbidity than the FCI and the Charlson when HRQOL is the outcome of interest. However, the FCI may provide a good option to evaluate the physical aspect of HRQOL for the ease in its administration and scoring. The Charlson index may not be recommended as a measure of multimorbidity in studies related to either physical or mental aspects of HRQOL.
共病测量方法常常应用于其原始开发工作范围之外的源数据、人群或结果。由于共病测量方法的开发受到所使用的人群和结果的影响,因此在选择共病指数时应考虑这些影响。本研究的目的是比较健康相关生活质量(HRQOL)与三种共病指数之间关联的强度:累积疾病评定量表(CIRS)、查尔森指数(Charlson)和功能共病指数(FCI)。前两种指数并非针对HRQOL开发。
我们使用了关于慢性病的数据以及一份SF - 36问卷的数据,该问卷用于评估参与先前一项研究的238名成年初级保健患者的HRQOL。我们通过病历审查提取了每位患者的所有诊断信息,以对CIRS、FCI和查尔森指数进行评分。还收集了潜在混杂因素(年龄、性别、自我感知的经济状况和自我感知的社会支持)的数据。我们计算了SF - 36评分与三种共病测量方法之间的皮尔逊相关系数(r)以及决定系数R²,同时对混杂因素进行了控制。
CIRS的r值(范围:-0.55至-0.18)始终高于FCI(-0.47至-0.10)和查尔森指数(-0.31至-0.04)的r值。CIRS解释了SF - 36所有评分中最高比例的变异,除了心理成分汇总评分,其变异不显著。FCI解释的变异在SF - 36所有测量身体健康的评分以及两个评估心理健康的量表中均显著。查尔森指数解释的变异仅在三个测量身体健康的评分中显著。
当HRQOL是感兴趣的结果时,作为共病测量方法,CIRS比FCI和查尔森指数是更好的选择。然而,FCI因其易于管理和评分,可能为评估HRQOL的身体方面提供一个不错的选择。在与HRQOL的身体或心理方面相关的研究中,不建议将查尔森指数作为共病测量方法。