Predicting mortality and healthcare utilization with a single question.

Section of General Internal Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 08/2005; 40(4):1234-46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00404.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We compared single- and multi-item measures of general self-rated health (GSRH) to predict mortality and clinical events a large population of veteran patients.
We analyzed prospective cohort data collected from 21,732 patients as part of the Veterans Affairs Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP), a randomized controlled trial investigating quality-of-care interventions.
We created an age-adjusted, logistic regression model for each predictor and outcome combination, and estimated the odds of events by response category of the GSRH question and compared the discriminative ability of the predictors by developing receiver operator characteristic curves and comparing the associated area under the curve (AUC)/c-statistic for the single- and multi-item measures.
All patients were sent a baseline assessment that included a multi-item measure of general health, the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-36), and an inventory of comorbid conditions. We compared the predictive and discriminative ability of the GSRH to the SF-36 physical component score (PCS), the mental component score (MCS), and the Seattle index of comorbidity (SIC). The GSRH is an item included in the SF-36, with the wording: "In general, would you say your health is: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor?"
The GSRH, PCS, and SIC had comparable AUC for predicting mortality (AUC 0.74, 0.73, and 0.73, respectively); hospitalization (AUC 0.63, 0.64, and 0.60, respectively); and high outpatient use (AUC 0.61, 0.61, and 0.60, respectively). The MCS had statistically poorer discriminatory performance for mortality and hospitalization than any other other predictors (p<.001).
The GSRH response categories can be used to stratify patients with varying risks for adverse outcomes. Patients reporting "poor" health are at significantly greater odds of dying or requiring health care resources compared with their peers. The GSRH, collectable at the point of care, is comparable with longer instruments.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose of the Study: To examine the influence of mastery, physical activity levels, and subsequent trajectories of domains of functional health across the adult life course.
    The Gerontologist 01/2014; 55(1):120-131. DOI:10.1093/geront/gnu042 · 2.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This qualitative case study adopted the position that health and health behaviors are complex social constructs influenced by multiple factors. Framed by the social ecological model, the study explored how work interactions enhanced or detracted from the perceptions of well-being and health behaviors. Despite the fact that previous studies indicated that the social workplace environment contributed to employee health, there was little information regarding the characteristics. Specifically, little was known about how employees perceived the connections between workplace interactions and health, or how social interactions enhanced or detracted from well-being and health behaviors. The participants included 19 volunteers recruited from four companies, who shared their experiences of workplace interactions through interviews and journaling assignments. The findings indicated that feelings of well-being were enhanced by work interactions, which were trusting, collaborative, and positive, as well as when participants felt valued and respected. The study also found that interactions detracted from well-being and health behaviors when interactions lacked the aforementioned characteristics, and also included lack of justice and empathy. The enhancing and detracting relationships generated physical symptoms, and influenced sleeping and eating patterns, socializing, exercise, personal relations, careers, and energy. Surprisingly, the study found that regardless of how broadly participants defined health, when they were asked to rate their health, participants uniformly rated theirs on physical attributes alone. The exclusive consideration of physical attributes suggests that participants may have unconsciously adopted the typical western medical view of health - an individually determined and physiologic characteristic. Despite research suggesting health is more than biology, and despite defining health broadly, participants uniformly adopted this traditional view. The study also offers human resource development professionals with evidence supporting interventions aimed at minimizing workplace incivility. Interventions designed to improve employee engagement could minimize financial and human costs of negative interactions. The bottom line is that workplaces should be physically, emotionally, and psychologically safe for well-being and healthy behaviors to flourish.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ContextBaby boomers are commonly believed to be healthier than the previous generation. Using self-rated health (SRH) as an indicator of health status, this study examines the effects of age, period, and birth cohort on the trajectory of health across 4 generations: World War II (born between 1935 and 1944), older baby boomers (born between 1945 and 1954), younger baby boomers (born between 1955 and 1964), and Generation X (born between 1965 and 1974).Methods We analyzed Canada’s longitudinal National Population Health Survey 1994-2010 (n = 8,570 at baseline), using multilevel growth models to estimate the age trajectory of SRH by cohort, accounting for period and incorporating the influence of changes in education, household income, smoking status, and body mass index (BMI) on SRH over time.FindingsSRH worsened with increasing age in all cohorts. Cohort differences in SRH were modest (p = 0.034), but there was a significant period effect (p = 0.002). We found marked cohort effects for increasing education, income, and BMI, and decreasing smoking from the youngest to the oldest cohorts, which were much reduced (education and smoking) or removed (income and BMI) once period was taken into account. At the population level, multivariable analysis showed the benefits of increasing education and income and declines in smoking on the trajectory of improving SRH were almost counterbalanced by the effects of increasing BMI (obesity).Conclusions We found no evidence to support the expectation that baby boomers will age more or less healthily than previous cohorts did. We also found that increasing BMI has likely undermined improvements in health that might have otherwise occurred, with possible implications for the need for health care. Period effects had a more profound effect than birth cohort effects. This suggests that interventions to improve health, such as reducing obesity, can be targeted to the entire, or a major portion of the, population and need not single out particular birth cohorts.
    Milbank Quarterly 03/2015; 93(1). DOI:10.1111/1468-0009.12105 · 5.06 Impact Factor


Available from