Comparing survey data on functional disability: The impact of some methodological differences

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 86-93

  Picavet, H S J ^a   Van Den Bos, G A M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DISABILITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; PREVALENCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0030068118     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech.50.1.86     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. World Health Organization. Health for all indicators: disability. Report on a WHO meeting. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe (EUR/ICP/RHB 023), 1991; 12.
2. NCHS. International health data reference guide 1993. Hyattsville: US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS Pubication no (PHS) 94-1007),1994; 118.
3. Evers, SMAA. Health for All indicators in health interview surveys. Health Policy 1993;23:205-18
4. Boshuizen HC, van de Water HPA. An international comparison of health expectancies. Leiden: TNO Health Report (TNO PG 94.046), 1994;145.
5. EUROSTAT. Disabled persons statistical data. Vol 1. Germany, Greece, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Portugal, 1991.
6. Volume Disabled persons statistical data. 2: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom. Luxembourg: Eurostat, 1992.
7. Heikkinen E, Waters WE, Brezezinski, ZJ, eds. The elderly in eleven countries, a sociomedical survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe (Public Health in Europe 21), 1983: 231.
8. Robine JM, Mathers CD, Bone MR, Romieu I, eds. Calculation of health expectancies: hamionization, consensus achieved and future perspective. (Colloque inserm, vol 226). Montrouge: John Libbey, 1993;388.
9. Locker D, Wiggins R, Sittampalam Y, Patrick DL. Estimating the prevalence of disability in the community: the influence of sample design and response bias. J Epidemiol Community Health 1981;35:208-12.
10. Mosely II RR, Wolinksy FD. The use of proxies in health surveys, substantive and policy implications. Med Care 1986;24:496-510.
11. Nelson LM, Longstreth WT, Koepsell TD, van Belle G. Proxy respondents in epidemiological research. Epidemiol Rev 1990;12:71-86.
12. Rothman ML, Hedrick SC, Bulcroft KA, Hickam DH, Rubenstein LZ. The validity of proxy-generated scores as measure of patient health status. Med Care 1991;29: 115-24.
13. Tennant A, Badley EM, Sullivan M. Investigating the proxy effect and the saliency principle in household based postal questionnaires. J Epidemiol Community Health 1991;45: 312-6.
14. Anderson JP, Bush JW, Berry CC. Classifying function for health outcome and quality of life evaluation. Self- versus interview modes. Med Care 1986;24:454-69.
15. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Juniper E, et al. Interviewer versus self-administered questionnaires in developing a disease-specific, health-related quality of life instrument for asthma. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:529-34.
16. Wiener JM, Hanley RJ, Clark R, van Nostrand JF. Measuring the activities in daily living: comparisons across national surveys. J Gerontol 1990;45:s229-37.
17. McWinnie JR. Disability assessment in population surveys: results of the OECD common development effort. Rev Epidemiol Santé Publique 1981;29:413-9.
18. McWinnie JR. Measuring disability. OECD Social Indicators Programme (Special Studies no 5). Paris: OECD, 1982: 44.
19. World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps - a manual relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva, WHO, 1980:208.
20. Wood PHN. Classification of impairments and handicaps. Reviews/Conference Series No 75/13. Geneva: WHO, 1975.
21. Chamie M. Survey design strategies for the study of disability. World Health Stat Q 1989;42:122-40.