IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v27y1988i12p1433-1437.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cornell medical index responses and mortality in a Polynesian population

Author

Listed:
  • Crews, Douglas E.
  • Pearson, Jay D.

Abstract

The Cornell Medical Index (CMI) is a health questionnaire consisting of a somatic division, divided into 12 sections organized by organ systems, and a psychosocial division. It has been suggested that the CMI taps a dimension of the perception of illness before clinical measurements detect disease. However, this has not been confirmed in nonwestern populations. Our purpose was to determine if the CMI predicted 6-year mortality in a Polynesian population. In 1975, 461 American Samoan men responded to the CMI. Thirty-one died between 1976 and 1981, 13 of cardiovascular disease (CVD). A logistic model was used to predict both total and CVD mortality during the follow-up period. Positive responses to the total, somatic, and psychosocial divisions of the CMI did not significantly improve prediction of mortality compared to models using only age. An analysis using section scores showed that several somatic sections were associated with CVD mortality, but none were associated with total mortality. This study suggests that the CMI is not a strong predictor of mortality and, by extension, of existing health status in American Samoa. Even if the CMI does measure the perception of illness, one cannot assume a priori that it is valid in any given anthropological population. Rather, the instrument must be pretested in each particular cultural setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Crews, Douglas E. & Pearson, Jay D., 1988. "Cornell medical index responses and mortality in a Polynesian population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 27(12), pages 1433-1437, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:27:y:1988:i:12:p:1433-1437
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(88)90210-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:27:y:1988:i:12:p:1433-1437. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.