Skip to main content

Table 5 Other QoL measures rather than SF / RAND, as predictor of all-cause mortality

From: Quality of life and mortality in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author (Year)

Comparison

Effect estimate (95% CI)

Core CDC Healthy Days Measures (HRQOL-4) (General Health) categorised

 Brown et al. 2015a [38]

HR, Excellent vs. Poor

0.24 (0.21–0.27)

 Dominick et al. 2002a [44]

RR, Excellent vs. Poor

0.24 (0.17–0.33)

WHO QOL – BREF (Overall)

 Kao et al. 2005 [54]

RR, 1-point change

0.99 (0.77–1.26)

 Murray et al. 2011 [63]

HR, 1-tertile increase

0.84 (0.67–1.05)

WHO QOL (Categorised)

 Gomez-Olive et al. 2014a [25]

HR, Highest vs. Lowest

0.61

 Razzaque et al. 2014a [69]

RR, Good vs. Bad

0.26 (0.16–0.41) men

0.30 (0.10–0.86) women

Psychological General Well-being (PGWB) (Global Score) continuous

 Nilsson et al. 2011a [66]

RR, 1-unit change

0.984 (0.969–0.998) men

0.994 (0.978–1.010) women

Lancashire Quality-of-life Profile-Residential (LQOLP-R) incorporated the Spitzer Uniscale

 Sutcliffe et al. 2007 [72]

HR, increased score

0.9805 (0.9704–0.9907)

Chinese 35-item Quality of Life (QOL-35) categorised

 Xie et al. 2014a [77]

HR, Upper 50% vs. Lower 50%

0.69 (0.49–1.00)

The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 Version (HUI3) continuous

 Feeny et al. 2012 [48]

HR, 1-level increase

Hearing: 0.18 (0.06–0.57)

Ambulation: 0.10 (0.04–0.23)

Pain: 0.53 (0.29–0.96)

 Kaplan et al. 2007 [55]

HR, 1-unit increase

Overall: 0.61 (0.42–0.89)

The EuroQoL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) continuous

 Cavrini et al. 2012 [39]

HR, 1-unit increase

0.42 (0.35–0.50)

The EuroQoL-5 Dimension EQ-5D categorised

 Jia et al. 2018a [53]

HR, 5th Quintile vs. 1st Quintile

0.45 (0.43–0.49)

Short Form Six Dimension Utility Index (SF-6D) continuous

 Myint et al. 2010a [26]

HR, 1SD 0.12-point increase

0.74 (0.69–0.79)

Short Form Six Dimension Health Utility Measure (SF-6D) categorised

 Jia et al. 2018a [53]

HR, 5th Quintile vs. 1st Quintile

0.77 (0.71–0.80)

Goteborg Quality of Life Assessment

 Tibblin et al. 1993 [73]

Only Health variable was significantly related to mortality (No data available)

  1. awhere studies report reverse association or risk estimate per more than 1-unit increase, the risk estimates were standardised per 1-unit increase or 1-SD increase or high vs. low for the purpose of consistency across the table