Abstract
Objectives
To estimate Canadian population norms (health utility values, summary component scores and domain scores) for the VR-12.
Methods
English and French speaking Canadians aged 18 and older completed an online survey that included sociodemographic questions and standardized health status instruments, including the VR-12. Responses to the VR-12 were summarized as: (i) a health utility value; (ii) mental and physical component summary scores (MCS and PCS, respectively), and (iii) eight domain scores. Norms were calculated for the full sample and by gender, age group, and province/territory (univariate), and for several multivariate stratifications (e.g., age group and gender). Results were summarized using descriptive statistics, including number of respondents, mean and standard deviation (SD), median and percentiles (25th and 75th), and minimum and maximum.
Results
A total of 6761 people who clicked on the survey link completed the survey (83.4% completion rate), of whom 6741 (99.7%) were included in the analysis. The mean health utility score was 0.698 (SD = 0.216). Mean health utility scores tended to be higher in older age groups, ranging from 0.661 (SD = 0.214) in those aged 18–29 to 0.728 (SD = 0.310) in those aged 80+. Average MCS scores were higher in older age groups, while PCS scores were lower. Females consistently reported lower mean health utility values, summary component scores and domain scores compared with males.
Conclusions
This is the first study to present Canadian norms for the VR-12. Health utility norms can serve as a valuable input for Canadian economic models, while summary component and domain norms can help interpret routinely-collected data.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Generic health-related quality of life instruments—measures of self-perceived health status designed to be applicable across diverse groups of respondents, regardless of disease or demographics—have a multitude of applications in research and clinical care. These include as indicators of disease burden and health outcome, as case-mix indicators for risk adjustment, and at the individual patient-level for informing care [1,2,3,4,5]. There is no gold standard of measurement for health-related quality of life, whether generic or disease-specific. For this reason, it is important that instrument-specific resources exist to assist with the interpretation of data. An example of such a resource is the establishment of reference data for population norms, which summarize health outcomes in the general population and across demographic and clinical subgroups. The availability of population norms enables researchers to compare estimates from study samples with a population reference. Such data are useful in multiple contexts, including tracking changes in health outcomes over time [6,7,8,9], comparing populations with different health conditions [10], comparing between countries [11, 12], and modelling comparison groups in the evaluation of health technologies in the absence of primary data [13].
The Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12) and associated measures are among the most widely used instruments for assessing respondents’ (patients and non-patients) perceptions of health domains relevant to their quality of life [5, 14]. The VR-12 was developed from the Veterans RAND 36-item Health Survey, which was developed and modified from the original RAND version of the 36-item Health Survey version 1.0 (also known as the MOS SF-36) [15, 16]. Responses to the VR-12 can be used to generate (i) health utility values, (ii) summary component scores for mental health and physical health, and (iii) scores for each of the instrument’s eight domains. (Further details about the VR-12 are provided in the Methods section.) Population norms for the VR-12 have been described using data from over 170,000 respondents to the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey in the United States (US) [16] and a sample of 500 Chinese adults in Hong Kong [17]. There are no Canadian population norms for the VR-12. Previous studies have published Canadian population norms for health utility scores generated using other instruments, including the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) [13], EQ-5D-3L (Alberta only) [18], EQ-5D-5L [19, 59].
In our cross-sectional survey, we identified that people in older age groups provide VR-12 responses that correspond with higher mean health utility values. Previous studies have found different patterns with respect to age, including an age-related monotonic decline in health utility values for the SF-6D [50] and AQoL-4D [60] instruments, and a u-shaped utility curve for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D instruments [22]. The differences in these trajectories may reflect the items captured by each instrument. Evidence suggests that instruments with a higher proportion of items related to physical health tend to exhibit a monotonic decline, while those with a higher proportion of items related to mental health tend to exhibit a u-shaped curve given older age groups tend to report higher mental health scores [22, 37, 61]. In our study, higher scores in the mental health and social functioning domains in older Canadians seems to be driving the higher health utility scores in older ages. There was some evidence of lower physical health scores in older age groups for the bodily pain, physical functioning, and role physical domains, however these differences were modest in comparison with the age-related increase in scores on the mental health domains.
We observed that females reported lower scores than males. This finding was consistent across health utility values, summary component scores, and domain scores. A study of Medicare beneficiaries in the US that reported norms for the VR-12 also found that females reported lower mean PCS and MCS scores than males [16]. This general observation has been observed for other instruments [22, 23, 37]. It is possible men and women with the same health status may interpret and respond differently to the items (known as differential item functioning). However, a 2017 study of the VR-12, which included over 270,000 respondents, concluded there was no evidence of differential item functioning at the domain level across genders [62]. There were statistically significant differences for some items, although the magnitudes of these differences were considered negligible. This suggests that the observed gender differences may reflect differences in health status. A 2016 systematic review of self-reported health data from 59 countries found that women systematically reported lower health and functional status than males [63]. This effect was present across all age groups and in both low- and high-income countries. The authors suggested that both societal (e.g., gender inequality in employment and education) and biological (e.g., higher rates of chronic conditions in females) factors may have contributed to the findings [63].
To facilitate the use of the VR-12 norms, we have created an interactive website (https://vr12.cheos.ubc.ca/home). This website includes downloadable comma-separated value files of the health utility score, summary component score, and domain score norms by gender, age group, and province. The website also allows users with respondent-level VR-12 data to calculate VR-12 health utility scores, summary component scores, and domain scores; estimate EQ-5D-5L health utility scores based on a map** (or ‘crosswalk’) algorithm; and obtain normative VR-12 data for their sample that is adjusted for age, gender, and geographic location.
This study has several strengths and limitations. First, our data come from a large sample of nearly 7000 respondents that were selected to be representative of the Canadian population based on age, gender, and geographic location. To further enhance the representation of our sample we used a raking procedure to weight responses to the 2021 Canadian census and 2017/18 Canadian Community Health Survey based on gender, province, education, age group, and health status. A 2010 study in the US compared online and telephone-based administration for estimating population norms for the PROMIS instrument and found that online administration with post-sampling adjustment resulted in a sample comparable to probability-based general population samples [64]. In our study, adjustment resulted in the sample more closely reflecting the characteristics of the Canadian population, particularly with respect to education and health status, although some imbalances remained. For example, our weighted sample overrepresented those who identify as ‘White’ and underrepresented selected groups, including those who identify as ‘South Asian’ and ‘Black,’ and those in the lowest household gross income bracket. Our sampling procedure, which used an online market research panel, may have resulted in other populations being underrepresented in our sample, such as those without access to a computer or new immigrants. In addition, survey respondents were able to choose to complete the survey in either English or French. Consequently, caution is necessary when generalizing these findings to populations who are underrepresented in our sample or to samples where the VR-12 was administered in one language.
Conclusion
We have estimated Canadian VR-12 population norms for health utility scores, summary component scores, and domain scores in a large, nationally representative population sample. The health utility norms, which are reported by age group, gender, and region, can serve as a valuable input for Canadian economic models, particularly those interested in subgroup analyses. The norms for summary component scores and domain scores provide a reference standard that allows for routinely-collected data to be interpreted in the context of the Canadian population.
References
Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118(8), 622–629. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009
Lipscomb, J., Donaldson, M. S., & Hiatt, R. A. (2004). Cancer outcomes research and the arenas of application. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 33, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgh038
Snyder, C. F., Jensen, R. E., Segal, J. B., & Wu, A. W. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): Putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research. Medical Care, 51(8 Suppl 3), S73-79. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829b1d84
Bansback, N., Li, L. C., Lynd, L., & Bryan, S. (2014). Development and preliminary user testing of the DCIDA (Dynamic computer interactive decision application) for “nudging” patients towards high quality decisions. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 14, 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-14-62
Selim, A. J., Rothendler, J. A., Qian, S. X., Bailey, H. M., & Kazis, L. E. (2022). The history and applications of the veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12). Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 45(3), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1097/JAC.0000000000000420
Bryan, S., Ratcliffe, J., Neuberger, J. M., Burroughs, A. K., Gunson, B. K., & Buxton, M. J. (1998). Health-related quality of life following liver transplantation. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008849224815
Brooks, P. M., March, L. M., Cross, M. J., Tribe, K. L., Bachmeier, C. J., Lapsley, H., & Brooks, P. M. (1999). Outcomes after hip or knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis. Medical Journal of Australia, 171(5), 235–238. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1999.tb123628.x
Kahn, S. R., Ducruet, T., Lam**, D. L., Arsenault, L., Miron, M. J., Roussin, A., & Shrier, I. (2005). Prospective evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients with deep venous thrombosis. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165(10), 1173–1178. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.10.1173
Yao, Q., Liu, C., Zhang, Y., & Xu, L. (2019). Changes in health-related quality of life of Chinese populations measured by the EQ-5D-3 L: A comparison of the 2008 and 2013 National Health Services Surveys. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 17(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1109-x
Hudson, M., Thombs, B. D., Steele, R., Panopalis, P., Newton, E., Baron, M., Group, for the C. S. R. (2009). Quality of life in patients with systemic sclerosis compared to the general population and patients with other chronic conditions. The Journal of Rheumatology, 36(4), 768–772. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.080281
Frieling, M. A., Davis, W. R., & Chiang, G. (2013). The SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 health surveys in New Zealand: Norms, scoring coefficients and cross-country comparisons. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12006
Janssen, M. F., Szende, A., Cabases, J., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Vilagut, G., & König, H. H. (2019). Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L: A cross-country analysis of population surveys for 20 countries. The European Journal of Health Economics, 20(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-0955-5
Guertin, J. R., Feeny, D., & Tarride, J.-E. (2018). Age- and sex-specific Canadian utility norms, based on the 2013–2014 Canadian Community Health Survey. CMAJ, 190(6), E155–E161. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170317
Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Clark, J. A., Skinner, K. M., Lee, A., Ren, X. S., & Ware, J. E. (2004). Improving the response choices on the veterans SF-36 health survey role functioning scales: Results from the Veterans Health Study. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 27(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004479-200407000-00010
Hays, R. D., & Morales, L. S. (2001). The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 350–357. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002089
Selim, A. J., Rogers, W., Fleishman, J. A., Qian, S. X., Fincke, B. G., Rothendler, J. A., & Kazis, L. E. (2009). Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9418-2
Fong, D. Y. T., Chan, B. K. Y., Li, S., Wan, C. H., & Kazis, L. E. (2022). Average and individual differences between the 12-item MOS Short-form Health Survey version 2 (SF-12 vol 2) and the veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12) in the Chinese population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 20(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02010-z
Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38(1), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200001000-00013
Poder, T. G., Carrier, N., & Kouakou, C. R. C. (2020). Quebec Health-Related Quality-of-Life Population Norms Using the EQ-5D-5L: Decomposition by Sociodemographic Data and Health Problems. Value in Health, 23(2), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.08.008
Yan, J., **e, S., Johnson, J. A., Pullenayegum, E., Ohinmaa, A., Bryan, S., & **e, F. (2023). Canada population norms for the EQ-5D-5L. The European Journal of Health Economics (published online ahead of print, February 2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-023-01570-1
Poder, T. G., & Carrier, N. (2022). Quebec health-related quality of life population norms in adults using the SF-6Dv2: Decomposition by sociodemographic data and health problems. Medical Care, 60(7), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001730
Maxwell, A., Özmen, M., Iezzi, A., & Richardson, J. (2016). Deriving population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments from web-based data. Quality of Life Research, 25(12), 3209–3219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1337-z
McCaffrey, N., Kaambwa, B., Currow, D. C., & Ratcliffe, J. (2016). Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L: South Australian population norms. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 14(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0537-0
Torrance, G. W., & Feeny, D. (1989). Utilities and Quality-Adjusted Life Years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 5(4), 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462300008461
Weinstein, M. C., Torrance, G., & McGuire, A. (2009). QALYs: The basics. Value in Health, 12, S5–S9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x
Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: A review. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. (2017). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. 4th Edition. Retrieved from https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines_for_the_economic_evaluation_of_health_technologies_canada_4th_ed.pdf
Eysenbach, G. (2004). Improving the quality of web surveys: The checklist for reporting results of internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(3), e34. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34
Bansback, N., Trenaman, L., Mulhern, B. J., Norman, R., Metcalfe, R., Sawatzky, R., & Whitehurst, D. G. T. (2022). Estimation of a Canadian preference-based scoring algorithm for the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey: a population survey using a discrete-choice experiment. CMAJ Open, 10(3), E589–E598. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20210113
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., & Hays, R. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011
Kazis, L. E. (2000). The Veterans SF-36 health status questionnaire: Development and application in the Veterans Health Administration. Medical Outcomes Trust Monitor, 5(1), 1–14.
Selim, A., Rogers, W., Qian, S., Rothendler, J. A., Kent, E. E., & Kazis, L. E. (2018). A new algorithm to build bridges between two patient-reported health outcome instruments: the MOS SF-36® and the VR-12 Health Survey. Quality of Life Research, 27(8), 2195–2206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1850-3
Statistics Canada. (2021). 2021 Census of Population. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm
Statistics Canada. (2020). Canadian Community Health Survey - Annual Component (CCHS) 2017–2018. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11272.1/AB2/SEB16A
Izrael, D., Battaglia, M., Battaglia, A., & Ball, S. (2017). SAS Raking Macro—Generation IV. Retrieved from www.abtassociates.com/raking-survey-data-aka-sample-balancing
Hopman, W. M., Towheed, T., Anastassiades, T., Tenenhouse, A., Poliquin, S., Berger, C., Papadimitropoulos, E. (2000). Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. CMAJ, 163(3), 265–271.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. (2015). Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Background Document. Retrieved from https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/proms_background_may21_en-web.pdf
Touré, M., Kouakou, C. R. C., & Poder, T. G. (2021). Dimensions used in instruments for QALY calculation: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9), 4428. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094428
Whitehurst, D. G. T., & Bryan, S. (2011). Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable: But why should we expect them to be? Value in Health, 14(4), 531–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.09.002
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14543107
Whitehurst, D. G. T., Mittmann, N., Noonan, V. K., Dvorak, M. F., & Bryan, S. (2016). Health state descriptions, valuations and individuals’ capacity to walk: A comparative evaluation of preference-based instruments in the context of spinal cord injury. Quality of Life Research, 25(10), 2481–2496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1297-3
Bleichrodt, H., & Johannesson, M. (1997). Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: Experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. Journal of Health Economics, 16(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6296(96)00509-7
Bleichrodt, H. (2002). A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Economics, 11(5), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.688
Torrance, G. W. (1976). Toward a utility theory foundation for health status index models. Health Services Research, 11(4), 349–369.
Norman, R., Cronin, P., Viney, R., King, M., Street, D., & Ratcliffe, J. (2009). International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: A review and analysis. Value in Health, 12(8), 1194–1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00581.x
Whitehurst, D. G. T., Norman, R., Brazier, J. E., & Viney, R. (2014). Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises. Value in Health, 17(5), 570–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.1720
Wang, P., Li, M. H., Liu, G. G., Thumboo, J., & Luo, N. (2015). Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese. The European Journal of Health Economics, 16(8), 857–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0635-z
van den Berg, B. (2012). SF-6D Population Norms. Health Economics, 21(12), 1508–1512. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1823
Norman, R., Church, J., van den Berg, B., & Goodall, S. (2013). Australian health-related quality of life population norms derived from the SF-6D. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12005
Wong, C. K. H., Mulhern, B., Cheng, G. H. L., & Lam, C. L. K. (2018). SF-6D population norms for the Hong Kong Chinese general population. Quality of Life Research, 27(9), 2349–2359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1887-3
**e, S., Wu, J., & **e, F. (2022). Population Norms for SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L in China. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 20(4), 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-022-00715-2
**e, S., Wang, D., Wu, J., Liu, C., & Jiang, W. (2022). Comparison of the measurement properties of SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L in a Chinese population health survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 20(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02003-y
Jiang, R., Janssen, M. F. B., & Pickard, A. S. (2021). US population norms for the EQ-5D-5L and comparison of norms from face-to-face and online samples. Quality of Life Research, 30(3), 803–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02650-y
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). Validity and reliability of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. The Patient, 7(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-013-0036-x
van Krugten, F. C. W., Feskens, K., Busschbach, J. J. V., Hakkaart-van Roijen, L., & Brouwer, W. B. F. (2021). Instruments to assess quality of life in people with mental health problems: A systematic review and dimension analysis of generic, domain- and disease-specific instruments. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 19(1), 249. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01883-w
Valderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., & Alonso, J. (2008). The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Quality of Life Research, 17(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0
Oliver, J. P., Huxley, P. J., Priebe, S., & Kaiser, W. (1997). Measuring the quality of life of severely mentally ill people using the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 32(2), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00788924
Tsuchiya, A., Bansback, N., Hole, A. R., & Mulhern, B. (2019). Manipulating the 5 dimensions of the EuroQol instrument: The effects on self-reporting actual health and valuing hypothetical health states. Medical Decision Making, 39(4), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19851049
Hawthorne, G., Korn, S., & Richardson, J. (2013). Population norms for the AQoL derived from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12004
Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Clark, J., Skinner, K., Lee, A., Rogers, W., & Linzer, M. (1998). Health-related quality of life in patients served by the Department of Veterans Affairs: Results from the Veterans Health Study. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(6), 626–632. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.6.626
Kwon, J. Y., & Sawatzky, R. (2017). Examining gender-related differential item functioning of the Veterans Rand 12-item Health Survey. Quality of Life Research, 26(10), 2877–2883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1638-x
Boerma, T., Hosseinpoor, A. R., Verdes, E., & Chatterji, S. (2016). A global assessment of the gender gap in self-reported health with survey data from 59 countries. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 675. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3352-y
Liu, H., Cella, D., Gershon, R., Shen, J., Morales, L. S., Riley, W., & Hays, R. D. (2010). Representativeness of the PROMIS internet panel. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1169–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the respondents for taking part in the study.
Funding
This study was supported by the BC SUPPORT Unit Patient-Centred Measurement Methods Cluster and the BC Office of Patient-Centred Measurement. The funder had no role in the design of the study, including its execution and the methods of analysis. The funder also had no role in the decision to submit findings for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Concept and design: LT, NB, RS, LC, DGTW. Acquisition of data: LT, NB, DGTW. Analysis and interpretation of data: LT, DG, NB, RS, HS, DGTW. Drafting of the manuscript: LT, NB, DGTW. Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content: LT, DG, NB, RS, HS, LC, DGTW. Obtaining funding: NB, DGTW. Administrative, technical, or logistic support: NB. Supervision: NB, DGTW.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Lena Cuthbertson is the Provincial Executive Director of the BC Office of Patient-Centred Measurement and Co-chair of the BC Patient-Centred Measurement Steering Committee. The remaining authors declare they have nothing to disclose.
Ethical approval
The study was approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (study number H18-00969).
Consent to participate
All participants provided electronic informed consent.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Trenaman, L., Guh, D., Bansback, N. et al. Quality of life of the Canadian population using the VR-12: population norms for health utility values, summary component scores and domain scores. Qual Life Res 33, 453–465 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03536-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03536-5