Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Die Folgen des Klimwandels haben einen direkten Einfluss auf die Primärversorgung in Deutschland: Hitzeschutz insbesondere bei älteren Patienten, die Zunahme von Infektionen und die Verlängerung der Allergiesesaison spielen medizinisch eine bedeutsame Rolle. Aber auch in der Prävention und der Aufklärung der Patienten kommt den Hausärztinnen und -ärzten eine besondere Rolle zu. Direkt aus der Praxis berichtet im Live-Webinar am 13. Mai von 18 bis 19 Uhr unser Experte Dr. med. Robin Maitra.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 2/2016

01.02.2016

Preference-based health-related quality of life among victims of bullying

verfasst von: Linda Beckman, Mikael Svensson, Ann Frisén

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

No previous study has estimated the association between bullying and preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (“utility”), knowledge of which may be used for cost-effectiveness studies of interventions designed to prevent bullying. Therefore, the aim of the study was to estimate preference-based HRQoL among victims of bullying compared to non-victims.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey data collection among Swedish adolescents aged 15–17 years in the first year of upper secondary school was conducted in the city of Gothenburg in Sweden (N = 758). Preference-based HRQoL was estimated with the SF-6D. Regression analyses were conducted to adjust for some individual-level background variable.

Results

Mean preference-based health-related quality of life scores were 0.77 and 0.71 for non-victims and victims of bullying, respectively. The difference of 0.06 points was statistically significant (p < 0.05) and robust to inclusion of gender, age, and parental immigrant status.

Conclusions

The preference-based HRQoL estimates in this study may be used as an upper bound in economic evaluations of bullying prevention interventions, facilitating a comparison between costs and quality-adjusted life-years.
Literatur
1.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocia maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441–455.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Takizawa, R., Maughan, B., & Arseneault, L. (2014). Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization: Evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(7), 777–784.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Frisén, A., & Bjarnelind, S. (2010). Health-related quality of life and bullying in adolescence. Acta Paediatrica, 99(4), 597–603.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Wilkins-Shurmer, A., O’Callaghan, M., Najman, J., Bor, W., Williams, G., & Anderson, M. (2003). Association of bullying with adolescent health-related quality of life. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 39(6), 436–441.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Rigby, K., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Is school bullying really on the rise? Social Psychology of Education, 14(4), 441–455.CrossRef
6.
Currie, C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A., Currie, D., de Looze, M., Roberts, C., Samdal, O., Smith, O., & Barnekow, V. (2012). Social determinants of health and well-being among young people : Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) study : International report from the 2009/2010 survey. (No. 9289014237). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
7.
Sundell, K., & Forster, M. (2005). En grund för att växa i Gränslös utmaning—alkoholpolitik i ny tid [A foundation for growth in Limitless challenge-alcohol policy in the new era] I: Gränslös utmaning [Limitless challange] (SOU 2005:25) (appendix 8). Stockholm.
8.
Flygare, E., Gill, P. E., & Johansson, B. (2013). Lessons from a concurrent evaluation of eight antibullying programs used in Sweden. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(2), 170–189.CrossRef
9.
Ttofi, M., Farrington, D., & Baldry, A. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to reduce school bullying—A systematic review. Stockholm: The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
10.
SNAE. (2009). Kostnader för förskoleverksamhet, skolbarnsomsorg, skola och vuxenutbildning 2008: Skolverket (The Swedish National Agency for Education).
11.
Gold, M., Siegel, J., Russell, L., & Weinstein, M. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
NICE. (2004). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal.
13.
14.
Pliskin, J. S., Shepard, D. S., & Weinstein, M. C. (1980). Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research, 28, 206–224.CrossRef
15.
Zeckhauser, R. J., & Shepard, D. S. (1976). Where now for saving lives? Law and Contemporary Problems, 40(4), 5–45.CrossRef
16.
17.
Burström, K., Johannesson, M., & Diderichsen, F. (2001). Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 10(7), 621–635.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Ladapo, J. A., Neumann, P. J., Keren, R., & Prosser, L. A. (2007). Valuing children’s health: A comparison of cost-utility analyses for adult and paediatric health interventions in the US. Pharmacoeconomics, 25(10), 817–828.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Prosser, L. A., Hammitt, J. K., & Keren, R. (2007). Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics, 25(9), 713–726.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Petrou, S., & Kupek, E. (2009). Estimating preference-based health utilities index mark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland. Medical Decision Making, 29(3), 291–303.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kolinski, M., & Gandeck, B. (1993). SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre.
22.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Torrance, G. W., Boyle, M. H., & Horwood, S. P. (1982). Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Research, 30(6), 1043–1069.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
26.
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Mimeo HEMIL: University of Bergen.
27.
Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimisation at school and the health of secondary school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1), 95–104.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Basu, A., & Manca, A. (2012). Regression estimators for generic health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life years. Medical Decision Making, 32(1), 56–69.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
29.
Drummond, M. (2001). Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 344–349.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Bowes, L., Joinson, C., Wolke, D., & Lewis, G. (2015). Peer victimisation during adolescence and its impact on depression in early adulthood: Prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom. BMJ, 350, h2469.
31.
Eriksen, T. L. M., Nielsen, H. S., & Simonsen, M. (2014). Bullying in Elementary School. Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 839–871.CrossRef
32.
33.
Owen, L., Morgan, A., Fischer, A., Ellis, S., Hoy, A., & Kelly, M. P. (2012). The cost-effectiveness of public health interventions. Journal of Public Health, 34(1), 37–45.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Lawson, K. D., Kearns, A., Petticrew, M., & Fenwick, E. A. L. (2013). Investing in health: Is social housing value for money? A cost-utility analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 67, 829–834.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research, 24, 2045–2053.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
37.
38.
Card, N., & Hodges, E. (2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: Correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 451–461.CrossRef
39.
Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 410–420.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Preference-based health-related quality of life among victims of bullying
verfasst von
Linda Beckman
Mikael Svensson
Ann Frisén
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2016
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1101-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2016

Quality of Life Research 2/2016 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Quality of life in women with lipoedema: a contextual behavioral approach

Brief Communication

Screening commercial drivers for obstructive sleep apnea: translation and validation of Serbian version of Berlin Questionnaire

OriginalPaper

The case for using country-specific scoring coefficients for scoring the SF-12, with scoring implications for the SF-36

Brief Communication

Adaptation of the 10-Item Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire to Iranian Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Brief Communication

Test–retest reliability of HeartQoL and its comparability to the MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire

OriginalPaper

An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences