SF 36 health survey questionnaire: II. Responsiveness to changes in health status in four common clinical conditions.

OBJECTIVE--To assess the responsiveness of the SF 36 health survey questionnaire to changes in health status over time for four common clinical conditions. DESIGN--Postal questionnaires at baseline and after one year's follow up, with two reminders at two week intervals if necessary. SETTING--Clinics and four training general practices in Grampian region in the north east of Scotland. PATIENTS--More than 1,700 patients aged 16 to 86 years with one of four conditions: low back pain, menorrhagia, suspected peptic ulcer, and varicose veins; and a random sample of 900 members of the local general population for comparison. MAIN MEASURES--A transition question measuring change in health and the eight scales of the SF 36 health survey questionnaire; standardised response means (mean change in score for a scale divided by the standard deviation of the change in scores) used to quantify the instrument's responsiveness to changes in perceived health status, and comparison of patient scores at baseline and follow up with those of the general population. RESULTS--The response rate exceeded 75% in a patient population. Changes across the SF 36 questionnaire were associated with self reported changes in health, as measured by the transition question. The questionnaire showed significant improvements in health status for all four clinical conditions, whether in referred or non-referred patients. For patients with suspected peptic ulcer and varicose veins the SF 36 profiles at one year approximate to the general population. CONCLUSIONS--These results provide the first evidence of the responsiveness of the SF 36 questionnaire to changes in perceived health status in a patient population in the United Kingdom.

[1]  M. Abdalla,et al.  SF 36 health survey questionnaire: I. Reliability in two patient based studies. , 1994, Quality in health care : QHC.

[2]  A. Garratt,et al.  Developing a Valid and Reliable Measure of Health Outcome for Patients With Low Back Pain , 1994, Spine.

[3]  S. Ziebland,et al.  Transition questions to assess outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1993, British journal of rheumatology.

[4]  T. Sheldon Measuring patients' views of their health. Reliability of SF 36 remains uncertain. , 1993, BMJ.

[5]  M. Abdalla,et al.  The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? , 1993, BMJ.

[6]  A Coulter,et al.  Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. , 1993, BMJ.

[7]  S Ziebland,et al.  A comparison of the sensitivity to change of several health status instruments in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1993, The Journal of rheumatology.

[8]  C. McHorney,et al.  The MOS 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36): II. Psychometric and Clinical Tests of Validity in Measuring Physical and Mental Health Constructs , 1993, Medical care.

[9]  J. Buckingham,et al.  Towards measurement of outcome for patients with varicose veins. , 1993, Quality in health care : QHC.

[10]  M. Liang,et al.  Comparative Measurement Sensitivity of Short and Longer Health Status Instruments , 1992, Medical care.

[11]  Phillips Rc,et al.  Outcomes management in heart valve replacement surgery: early experience. , 1992 .

[12]  J. E. Brazier,et al.  Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. , 1992, BMJ.

[13]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) , 1992 .

[14]  Anastasia E. Raczek,et al.  The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. , 1992, Medical care.

[15]  Ware J.E.Jr.,et al.  THE MOS 36- ITEM SHORT FORM HEALTH SURVEY (SF- 36) CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND ITEM SELECTION , 1992 .

[16]  D. Lansky,et al.  Outcomes management in heart valve replacement surgery: early experience. , 1992, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[17]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Estimating and testing an index of responsiveness and the relationship of the index to power. , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  N. Lurie,et al.  Measuring Health Changes Among Severely III Patients: The Floor Phenomenon , 1990, Medical care.

[19]  M. Liang,et al.  Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation , 1990, Medical care.

[20]  A. Stewart,et al.  Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. , 1989, JAMA.

[21]  Lewis E. Kazis,et al.  Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status , 1989, Medical care.

[22]  S. Sepic,et al.  Neck Pain: A Long-term Follow-up of 205 Patients , 1987, Spine.

[23]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[24]  Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders. A monograph for clinicians. Report of the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders. , 1987, Spine.

[25]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  Can the Sickness Impact Profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. , 1986, Journal of chronic diseases.

[26]  R A Deyo,et al.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. , 1986, Journal of chronic diseases.

[27]  M H Liang,et al.  Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. , 1985, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[28]  R. Deyo,et al.  Toward clinical applications of health status measures: sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes. , 1984, Health services research.

[29]  M. Bergner,et al.  The Sickness Impact Profile: Validation of a Health Status Measure , 1976, Medical care.