Suppr超能文献

韩国疾病负担研究的残疾权重:侧重于与澳大利亚疾病负担研究中的残疾权重进行比较。

Disability weights for the korean burden of disease study: focused on comparison with disability weights in the Australian burden of disease study.

作者信息

Do Young Kyung, Yoon Seok Jun, Lee Jung Kyu, Kwon Young Hoon, Lee Sang Il, Kim Changyup, Park Kidong, Kim Yong Ik, Shin Youngsoo

机构信息

Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea.

出版信息

J Prev Med Public Health. 2004 Feb;37(1):59-71.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to measure the disability weights for the Korean Burden of Disease study, and to compare them with those adopted in the Australian study to examine the validity and describe the distinctive features.

METHODS

The standardized valuation protocol was developed from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study and the Dutch Disability Weights study. Disability weights were measured for 123 diseases of the Korean version of Disease Classification by three panels of 10 medical doctors each. Then, overall distribution, correlation coefficients, difference by each disease, and mean of differences by disease group were analyzed for comparison of disability weights between the Korean and Australian studies.

RESULTS

Korean disability weights ranged from 0.037 to 0.927. While the rank correlation coefficient was moderate to high (rs=0.68), Korean disability weights were higher than the corresponding Australian ones in 79.7% of the 118 diseases. Of these, war, leprosy, and most injuries showed the biggest differences. On the contrary, many infectious and parasitic diseases comprised the greater part of diseases of which Korean disability weights were lower. The mean of the differences was the highest in injuries of GBD disease groups, and in cardiovascular disease, injuries, and malignant neoplasm of the Korean disease category.

CONCLUSIONS

Korean disability weights were found to be valid on the basis of overall distribution pattern and correlation, and are expected to be used as basic data for broadening the scope of burden of disease study. However, some distinctive features still remain to be explored in following studies.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在为韩国疾病负担研究测定伤残权重,并将其与澳大利亚研究中采用的权重进行比较,以检验其有效性并描述其独特特征。

方法

标准化评估方案是根据全球疾病负担(GBD)研究和荷兰伤残权重研究制定的。由三组每组10名医生对韩国版疾病分类中的123种疾病测定伤残权重。然后,分析总体分布、相关系数、每种疾病的差异以及疾病组差异均值,以比较韩国和澳大利亚研究中的伤残权重。

结果

韩国的伤残权重范围为0.037至0.927。虽然等级相关系数为中度到高度(rs = 0.68),但在118种疾病中,79.7%的韩国伤残权重高于相应的澳大利亚伤残权重。其中,战争、麻风病和大多数伤害显示出最大差异。相反,许多传染病和寄生虫病在韩国伤残权重较低的疾病中占较大比例。差异均值在GBD疾病组的伤害以及韩国疾病分类中的心血管疾病、伤害和恶性肿瘤中最高。

结论

基于总体分布模式和相关性,韩国的伤残权重被认为是有效的,有望作为扩大疾病负担研究范围的基础数据。然而,在后续研究中仍有一些独特特征有待探索。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验