Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 446

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

US Norms for Six Generic Health-Related Quality-of-Life Indexes From the National Health Measurement Study

Open access
Fryback, Dennis G., Dunham, Nancy Cross, Palta, Mari, Hanmer, Janel, Buechner, Jennifer, Cherepanov, Dasha, Herrington, Shani A., Hays, Ron D., Kaplan, Robert M., Ganiats, Theodore G., Feeny, David, Kind, Paul·2007·Medical Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A number of indexes measuring self-reported generic health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) using preference-weighted scoring are used widely in population surveys and clinical studies in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To obtain age-by-gender norms for older adults on 6 generic HRQoL indexes in a cross-sectional US population survey and compare age-related trends in HRQoL. METHODS: The EuroQol EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark 2, Health Utilities Index Mark 3, SF-36v2 (used to compute SF-6D), Quality of Well-being Scale self-administered form, and Health and Activities Limitations index were administered via telephone interview to each respondent in a national survey sample of 3844 noninstitutionalized adults age 35-89. Persons age 65-89 and telephone exchanges with high percentages of African Americans were oversampled. Age-by-gender means were computed using sampling and poststratification weights to adjust results to the US adult population. RESULTS: The 6 indexes exhibit similar patterns of age-related HRQoL by gender; however, means differ significantly across indexes. Females report slightly lower HRQoL than do males across all age groups. HRQoL seems somewhat higher for persons age 65-74 compared with people in the next younger age decade, as measured by all indexes. CONCLUSIONS: Six HRQoL measures show similar but not identical trends in population norms for older US adults. Results reported here provide reference values for 6 self-reported HRQoL indexes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0b013e31814848f1

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 446

Metadata

Authors
Fryback, D. G., Dunham, N. C., Palta, M., Hanmer, J., Buechner, J., Cherepanov, D., Herrington, S. A., Hays, R. D., Kaplan, R. M., Ganiats, T. G., Feeny, D., & Kind, P.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2007-12
Volume
45
Issue
12
Pages
1162-1170
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1985687068
Cited by
446
References
33
FWCI
44.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: US Norms for Six Generic Health-Related Quality-of-Life Indexes From the National Health Measurement Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/mlr.0b013e31814848f1
The paper
Fryback, D. G., Dunham, N. C., Palta, M., Hanmer, J., Buechner, J., Cherepanov, D., Herrington, S. A., Hays, R. D., Kaplan, R. M., Ganiats, T. G., Feeny, D., & Kind, P. (2007). US Norms for Six Generic Health-Related Quality-of-Life Indexes From the National Health Measurement Study. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0b013e31814848f1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.