Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-11-2011

A comparison of the discriminative and evaluative properties of the SF-36 and the SF-6D index

Auteurs: Alex Mutebi, John E. Brazier, Stephen J. Walters

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2011

Abstract

Purpose

To examine whether the move from the multidimensional SF-36 patient-reported outcome measure to the single-index preference-based SF-6D entails a loss in discriminative and evaluative properties, the magnitude of that loss and whether it matters.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of data from studies that used the SF-36 and the derived SF-6D. The discriminative and evaluative properties of the two measures were compared by calculating effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), and relative validity (RV) statistics using the SF-6D as the reference.

Results

Data were available from seven studies and 8,522 subjects. At least one SF-36 scale was always more sensitive than the index. Cross-sectional pooled results showed that physical functioning (RV = 0.19 and ES = 0.13) and PCS (RV = 0.18 and ES = 0.13) were generally most sensitive compared to the index (RV = 0.16 and ES = 0.12). Longitudinal pooled results showed that PCS (RV = 0.20), MCS (RV = 0.17), general health (RV = 0.18), and social functioning (RV = 0.17) were generally more sensitive than the index (RV = 0.14) based on RVs. Longitudinal pooled SRMs were all very small in magnitude.

Conclusion

No scale/dimension consistently had the largest RV, ES, or SRM across all conditions studied. Moving from the SF-36 to SF-6D entails losses of a small magnitude in discriminative and evaluative properties.

vorige artikel BSRS-5 (5-item Brief Symptom Rating Scale) scores affect every aspect of quality of life measured by WHOQOL-BREF in healthy workers

volgende artikel Measuring health and well-being effects in family caregivers of children with craniofacial malformations

Patrick, D. L., & Erickson, P. (1993). Health status and health policy: Quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. N Y: Oxford University Press.

Kane, L. R. (2006). Understanding health care outcomes research (2nd ed.). MA, USA: Jones and Bartlet.

Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1989). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRef

Rabin, R., & Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Annals of Medicine, 33, 337–343.PubMedCrossRef

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128.PubMedCrossRef

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.PubMedCrossRef

Fayers, M. P., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). West Sussex, England: Wiley.

Brazier, J. E., Ratcliffe, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Solomon, J. (2007). Measuring and valuing health for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10.

Drummond, F. M., Sculpher, J. M., Torrance, W. G., O’Brien, J. B., & Stoddart, L. G. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

11.

Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinsteiin, M. C. (Eds.). (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. N Y: Oxford University Press.

12.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2004). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London, UK: NICE.

13.

Jenkinson, C., & McGee, H. (2008). Health status measurement: A brief but critical introduction. Oxford: Radcliffe.

14.

McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr., Lee, J. F. R., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36); III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical Care, 32(1), 40–66.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E. (1998). The MOS short-form general health survey: Reliability and validity in patient population. Medical Care, 26, 724–735.CrossRef

16.

Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: A review. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Harper, R., Brazier, E. J., Waterhouse, C. J., Walters, J. S., Jones, M. N., & Howard, P. (1997). Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in an outpatient setting. Thorax, 52, 879–887.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Walters, S. J., Morrell, C. J., & Dixon, S. (1999). Measuring health related quality of life in patients with venous leg ulcers. Quality of Life Research, 8, 327–336.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Munro, F. J., Nicholl, P. J., Brazier, E. J., Davy, R., & Cochrane, T. (2004). Cost effectiveness of a community based exercise programme in over 65 years old: Cluster randomized trial. Journal of Epidemiology, Community Health, 58, 1004–1101.CrossRef

20.

Brazier, E. J., Harper, R., Munro, J., Walters, J. S., & Snaith, L. M. (1999). Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people in osteoarthritis of the knee. Oxford Journals of Rheumatology, 38(9), 870–877.CrossRef

21.

Akehurst, R., Brazier, J., Mathers, N., Healy, C., Kaltenhaler, E., Morgan, A., et al. (2002). Health related quality of life and cost impacts of irritable bowel syndrome. Pharmacoeconomics, 20(7), 455–462.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Liang, M. H., Fossel, A. H., & Larson, M. G. (1990). Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Medical Care, 28(7), 632–642.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Mahler, A. D., & Mackowiak, I. J. (1995). Evaluation of the SF-36 item questionnaire to measure health related quality of life in patients with COPD. Chest, 107, 1585–1589.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Van Stel, F. H., & Buskens, E. (2006). Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Journal of Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 20.CrossRef

Titel: A comparison of the discriminative and evaluative properties of the SF-36 and the SF-6D index
Auteurs: Alex Mutebi
John E. Brazier
Stephen J. Walters
Publicatiedatum: 01-11-2011
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2011
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9881-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2011

Migrating from a legacy fixed-format measure to CAT administration: calibrating the PHQ-9 to the PROMIS depression measures

BSRS-5 (5-item Brief Symptom Rating Scale) scores affect every aspect of quality of life measured by WHOQOL-BREF in healthy workers

Perceptions of illness stigma in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome

Factors associated with quality of life in hemifacial spasm and blepharospasm during long-term treatment with botulinum toxin

Predictors of quality of life in type 2 diabetes patients with schizophrenia, major mood disorder, and without mental illness

Using the knee-specific Hughston Clinic Questionnaire, EQ-5D and SF-6D following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery: a comparison of psychometric properties