Community preferences for health states asociated with intimate partner violence

Medical Care

Volumn 44, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 738-744

  Wittenberg, Eve ^a   Lichter, Erika L ^b   Ganz, Michael L ^c   McCloskey, Laura A ^d  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b Maine Department of Health and Human Services   (United States)

^c HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Domestic violence; Intimate partner violence; Quality of life; Utility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; QUALITY OF LIFE; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; BOSTON; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; LINEAR MODELS; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 33747838825     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000215860.58954.86     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2000.
2. Campbell J. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet. 2002;359:1331-1336.
3. Coker A, Smith P, Bethea L, et al. Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence. Archives of Family Medicine. 2000;9:451-457.
4. Leserman J, Li D, Drossman D, et al. Selected symptoms associated with sexual and physical abuse among female patients with gastrointestinal disorders: the impact on subsequent health care visits. Psychol Med. 1998;28:417-425.
5. Kernic M, Wolf M, Holt V. Rates and relative risk of hospital admission among women in violent intimate partner relationships. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:1460-1420.
6. Campbell J, Jones A, Dienemann J, et al. Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1157-1163.
7. Sadler AG, Booth BM, Nielson D, et al. Health-related consequences of physical and sexual violence: women in the military. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:473-480.
8. Dickinson LM, deGruy FV 3rd, Dickinson WP, et al. Health-related quality of life and symptom profiles of female survivors of sexual abuse. Archives of Family Medicine. 1999;8:35-43.
9. Leung T, Leung W, Ng E, et al. Quality of life of victims of intimate partner violence. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2005;90:258-262.
10. Wathen C, MacMillan H. Interventions for violence against women: scientific review. JAMA. 2003;289:589-600.
11. Tiwari A, Leung W, Leung T, et al. A randomized controlled trial of empowerment training for Chinese abused pregnant women in Hong Kong. BJOG. 2005;112:1249-1256.
12. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller S. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220-233.
13. Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, et al. Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D Index in a national US sample. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:247-254.
14. Brazier J, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42:851-859.
15. Lawrence W, Fleishman J. Predicting EuroQol EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:160-169.
16. Straus M, Hamby S, Boney-McCoy S, et al. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues. 1996;17:283-316.
17. Radloff L. The CES-D Scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psych Measurement 1977;1:385-401.
18. Kaplan R, Groessl E, Sengupta N, et al. Comparison of measured utility scores and imputed scores from the SF-36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care. 2005;43:79-87.
19. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271-292.
20. Fryback D, Lawrence W, Martin P, et al. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:1-9.
21. Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson D, et al. The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:128-140.
22. Nichol M, Sengupta N, Globe D. Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: estimating of the health utilities index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:105-112.
23. Schmueli A. The relationship between the visual analog scale and the SF-36 scales in the general population: an update. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:61-63.
24. Pickard A, Wang Z, Walton S, et al. Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2005;3:11.
25. Kind P. The EuroQol Instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.
26. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for the EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095-1108.
27. Shaw J, Johnson J, Coons S. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203-220.
28. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of the theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:208-216.
29. Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al., eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
30. SAS [computer program]. Version 9. 1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 2002-2003.
31. Ware J, et al. SF12v2 Health Survey User's Manual. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric, Inc; 2002.
32. Fryback D, Dasbach E, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam health outcomes study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:89-102.
33. Ubel P, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:599-607.
34. Saltzman L, Fanslow J, McMahon P, et al. Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1999.
35. Tengs T, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care. 2000;38:583-637.
36. Wittenberg E, Winer E, Weeks J. Patient utilities for advanced cancer: effect of current health on values. Med Care. 2005;43:173-181.