Summary Measure of Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Related Factors Based on the Chinese Version of the Core Healthy Days Measures: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The core Healthy Days measures were used to track the population-level health status in the China Chronic Disease and Risk Factor Surveillance; however, they were not easily combined to create a summary of the overall health-related quality of life (HRQOL), limiting this indicator's use. Objective: This study aims to develop a summary score based on the Chinese version of the core Healthy Days measures (HRQOL-5) and apply it to estimate HRQOL and its determinants in a Chinese population. Methods: From November 2018 to May 2019, a multistage stratified cluster survey was conducted to examine population health status and behavioral risk factors among the resident population older than 15 years in Weifang City, Shandong Province, China. Both exploratory factor analyses and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to reveal the underlying latent construct of HRQOL-5 and then to quantify the overall HRQOL by calculating its summary score. Tobit regression models were finally carried out to identify the influencing factors of the summary score. Results: A total of 26,269 participants (male: n=13,571, 51.7%; mean age 55.9, SD 14.9 years) were included in this study. A total of 71% (n=18,663) of respondents reported that they had excellent or very good general health. One summary factor was extracted to capture overall HRQOL using exploratory factor analysis. The confirmatory factor analysis further confirmed this one-factor model (Tucker-Lewis index, comparative fit index, and goodness-of-fit index >0.90; root mean square error of approximation 0.02). Multivariate Tobit regression analysis showed that age (β=-0.06), educational attainments (primary school: β=0.72; junior middle school: β=1.46; senior middle school or more: β=2.58), average income (≥¥30,000 [US $4200]: β=0.69), physical activity (β=0.75), alcohol use (β=0.46), self-reported disease (β=-6.36), and self-reported injury (β=-5.00) were the major influencing factors on the summary score of the HRQOL-5. Conclusions: This study constructs a summary score from the HRQOL-5, providing a comprehensive representation of population-level HRQOL. Differences in summary scores of different subpopulations may help set priorities for health planning in China to improve population HRQOL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".