Comparing South Korean and US self-rated health using anchoring vignettes
Comparing South Korean and US self-rated health using anchoring vignettes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11136-020-02599-y
复制
发表时间：
2020-08-08
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Grol-Prokopczyk, Hanna
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kang, Eunjeong;Grol-Prokopczyk, Hanna
本研究比较韩国和美国受访者的自评健康（SRH），使用锚定小片段来调整报告异质性，即使用反应类别的跨国差异。方法从Embrain在韩国（N = 1170）和美国（N = 1033）保留的在线调查小组中招募年龄在20至59岁之间的研究参与者。在分析中，我们首先检验了锚定小波法的两个关键测量假设。通过回归SRH对小情节评分和EQ-5D的影响来检验反应一致性，当SRH与小情节评分之间存在显著正相关时，反应一致性得到满足。通过检查受访者是否正确地按健康状况严重程度对小插曲排序来评估小插曲的等效性。然后，我们比较了两种模型对国家间SRH差异的估计：标准有序probit回归和分层有序probit （Hopit）回归，后者调整了使用反应类别的跨国差异。结果锚定图像满足两个测量假设。有序概率回归的结果表明，韩国的SRH比美国差。然而，Hopit回归的结果显示，在调整了韩国受访者明显更高的类别间阈值（“非常差”与“差”、“差”与“一般”之间的界限等）之后，韩国的SRH实际上比美国更好。结论：韩国人相对于美国人明显较低的SRH是韩国人对健康相关反应类别的更高标准的产物。根据这些不同的标准进行调整后，韩国的SRH比美国的SRH高。
Purpose This study compares the self-rated health (SRH) of South Korean and US respondents, using anchoring vignettes to adjust for reporting heterogeneity, i.e., cross-national differences in use of response categories. Methods Study participants, ages 20 to 59, were recruited from online survey panels retained by Embrain in Korea (N = 1170) and the US (N = 1033). In the analyses, we first examined the two key measurement assumptions of the anchoring vignette method. Response consistency was examined by regressing SRH on vignette ratings and EQ-5D, and was satisfied when the relationship between SRH and vignette ratings was significant and positive. Vignette equivalence was assessed by examining whether respondents correctly rank-ordered vignettes by health status severity. We then compared estimates of the between-country difference in SRH from two models: a standard ordered probit regression, and a hierarchical ordered probit (Hopit) regression, which adjusted for cross-country differences in use of response categories. Results The anchoring vignettes satisfied both measurement assumptions. Results from the ordered probit regression indicated that Korean SRH was worse than that in the US. However, results from the Hopit regression revealed that Korean SRH was actuallybetterthan that in the US, after adjusting for Korean respondents' significantly higher intercategory thresholds (demarcating between "very bad" and "bad," "bad" and "fair," etc.). Conclusion The apparently lower SRH of Korean vis-a-vis US respondents is an artifact of Koreans' higher standards for health-related response categories. After adjusting for these different standards, Korean SRH is revealed to be higher than US SRH.