Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 4/2019

03-12-2018

SF-36 normative values according to level of functioning in older women

Auteurs: Geeske Peeters, Michael Waller, Annette J. Dobson

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2019

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

The 36-item Medical Outcome Study Short Form (SF-36) survey measures health-related quality of life. Age and disease-specific normative values have been published, but a focus on level of functioning may be more meaningful in case of multimorbidity. We estimated normative values for Australian women aged 79–90 years according to levels of functioning.

Methods

Data were from 6127 (aged 79–84 in 2005) and 3424 (aged 85–90 in 2011) participants in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health. Surveys included the SF-36 and information on housing. Record linkage to assessment data for access to the national program for aged care support was used to obtain information on participants’ need for assistance with 10 activities. Normative values were calculated for physical component (PCS), mental component (MCS), and subscale scores for subsamples defined by types of assistance needed.

Results

At the ages of 79–84, the mean (95% confidence interval) PCS and MCS values for women not any needing assistance were 37.5 (37.2–37.9) and 53.0 (52.8–53.3) compared to 29.0 (27.8–30.2) and 45.9 (44.4–47.4) for women needing any assistance. At ages 85–90, the corresponding PCS values were 34.9 (34.5–35.4) vs. 28.2 (27.4–29.0) and the corresponding MCS values were 53.2 (52.8–53.6) vs. 48.7 (47.8–49.6). Values were higher for participants living in the community or retirement village vs. nursing homes/hostels. The PCS, MCS and 8 subscale values decreased as the need for assistance with more basic activities increased.

Conclusions

These normative values facilitate meaningful interpretation of SF-36 scores from the perspective of level of functioning.
vorige artikel The weight-specific adolescent instrument for economic evaluation (WAItE): psychometric evaluation using a Rasch model approach
volgende artikel Defining the cut-off point of clinically significant postoperative fatigue in three common fatigue scales
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Ware, J. E. Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.CrossRef
2.
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E. Jr., & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31(3), 247–263.CrossRef
3.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1997). 1995 National Health Survey—SF-36 Population Norms, Australia. Canberra: Australian Burea of Statistics. Catalogue No 4399.0.
4.
Blake, C., Codd, M. B., & O’Meara, Y. M. (2000). The Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey: Normative data for the Irish population. Irish Journal of Medical Sciences, 169(3), 195–200.CrossRef
5.
Hopman, W. M., Towheed, T., Anastassiades, T., Tenenhouse, A., Poliquin, S., Berger, C., et al. (2000). Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study Research Group. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 163(3), 265–271.PubMed
6.
Loge, J. H., & Kaasa, S. (1998). Short form 36 (SF-36) health survey: normative data from the general Norwegian population. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, 26(4), 250–258.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Stephens, C., Alpass, F., Baars, M., Towers, A., & Stevenson, B. (2010). SF-36v2 norms for New Zealanders aged 55–69 years. New Zealand Medical Journal, 123(1327), 47–57.PubMed
8.
Sullivan, M., & Karlsson, J. (1998). The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey III. Evaluation of criterion-based validity: Results from normative population. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1105–1113.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Demiral, Y., Ergor, G., Unal, B., Semin, S., Akvardar, Y., Kivircik, B., et al. (2006). Normative data and discriminative properties of short form 36 (SF-36) in Turkish urban population. BMC Public Health, 6, 247.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Huffman, G. R., Park, J., Roser-Jones, C., Sennett, B. J., Yagnik, G., & Webner, D. (2008). Normative SF-36 values in competing NCAA intercollegiate athletes differ from values in the general population. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume, 90(3), 471–476.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Burholt, V., & Nash, P. (2011). Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire: Normative data for Wales. Journal of Public Health, 33(4), 587–603.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Fortin, M., Bravo, G., Hudon, C., Vanasse, A., & Lapointe, L. (2005). Prevalence of multimorbidity among adults seen in family practice. Ann Fam Med, 3(3), 223–228.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Jackson, C. A., Jones, M., Tooth, L., Mishra, G. D., Byles, J., & Dobson, A. (2015). Multimorbidity patterns are differentially associated with functional ability and decline in a longitudinal cohort of older women. Age and Ageing, 44(5), 810–816.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Uijen, A. A., & van de Lisdonk, E. H. (2008). Multimorbidity in primary care: prevalence and trend over the last 20 years. The European Journal of General Practice, 14(Suppl 1), 28–32.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Lee, C., Dobson, A. J., Brown, W. J., Bryson, L., Byles, J., Warner-Smith, P., et al. (2005). Cohort Profile: The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health. International Journal Epidemiology, 34(5), 987–991.CrossRef
16.
Dobson, A. J., Hockey, R., Brown, W. J., Byles, J. E., Loxton, D. J., McLaughlin, D., et al. (2015). Cohort profile update: Australian longitudinal study on women’s health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 44(5), 1547a–1547af.CrossRef
17.
Brown, W. J., Bryson, L., Byles, J. E., Dobson, A. J., Lee, C., Mishra, G., et al. (1998). Women’s health Australia: Recruitment for a national longitudinal cohort study. Women and Health, 28(1), 23–40.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Waller, M., Mishra, G. D., & Dobson, A. J. (2017). Estimating the prevalence of dementia using multiple linked administrative health records and capture-recapture methodology. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 14, 3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Cerniauskaite, M., Quintas, R., Koutsogeorgou, E., Meucci, P., Sattin, D., Leonardi, M., et al. (2012). Quality-of-life and disability in patients with stroke. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation., 91(13 Suppl 1), S39–S47.CrossRef
20.
Leonardi, M., Raggi, A., Pagani, M., Carella, F., Soliveri, P., Albanese, A., et al. (2012). Relationships between disability, quality of life and prevalence of nonmotor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism & Related Disordorders, 18(1), 35–39.CrossRef
21.
Ohsawa, I., Ishida, T., Oshida, Y., Yamanouchi, K., & Sato, Y. (2003). Subjective health values of individuals with diabetes in Japan: Comparison of utility values with the SF-36 scores. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 62(1), 9–16.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Sandberg, G. E., & Wikblad, K. F. (2003). Oral health and health-related quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients and non-diabetic controls. Acta Odontol Scand, 61(3), 141–148.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Tyack, Z., Kuys, S., Cornwell, P., Frakes, K. A., & McPhail, S. (2018). Health-related quality of life of people with multimorbidity at a community-based, interprofessional student-assisted clinic: Implications for assessment and intervention. Chronic Illness, 14(3), 169–181.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Tyack, Z., Frakes, K. A., Barnett, A., Cornwell, P., Kuys, S., & McPhail, S. (2016). Predictors of health-related quality of life in people with a complex chronic disease including multimorbidity: A longitudinal cohort study. Quality of Life Research, 25(10), 2579–2592.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Drageset, J., Natvig, G. K., Eide, G. E., Clipp, E. C., Bondevik, M., Nortvedt, M. W., et al. (2008). Differences in health-related quality of life between older nursing home residents without cognitive impairment and the general population of Norway. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(9), 1227–1236.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Murray, M., Lefort, S., & Ribeiro, V. (1998). The SF-36: Reliable and valid for the institutionalized elderly? Aging and Mental Health, 2(1), 24–27.CrossRef
27.
Varma, G. R., Kusuma, Y. S., & Babu, B. V. (2010). Health-related quality of life of elderly living in the rural community and homes for the elderly in a district of India. Application of the short form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire. Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 43(4), 259–263.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Butterworth, P., & Crosier, T. (2004). The validity of the SF-36 in an Australian National Household Survey: Demonstrating the applicability of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey to examination of health inequalities. BMC Public Health, 4, 44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Brazier, J. E., Harper, R., Jones, N. M., O’Cathain, A., Thomas, K. J., Usherwood, T., et al. (1992). Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care. British Medical Journal, 305(6846), 160–164.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Tucker, G., Adams, R., & Wilson, D. (2010). New Australian population scoring coefficients for the old version of the SF-36 and SF-12 health status questionnaires. Quality of Life Research, 19(7), 1069–1076.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Scott, K. M., Tobias, M. I., Sarfati, D., & Haslett, S. J. (1999). SF-36 health survey reliability, validity and norms for New Zealand. Australia New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(4), 401–406.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
SF-36 normative values according to level of functioning in older women
Auteurs
Geeske Peeters
Michael Waller
Annette J. Dobson
Publicatiedatum
03-12-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2077-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2019

Quality of Life Research 4/2019 Naar de uitgave

Review

Individualized health-related quality of life instrument Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) and its adaptations: a critical appraisal

OriginalPaper

Assessing the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and life satisfaction, psychological well-being, and social well-being: United States Longitudinal Cohort 1995–2014

OriginalPaper

Quality of Life for 19,114 participants in the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) study and their association with sociodemographic and modifiable lifestyle risk factors

OriginalPaper

Measuring subjective wellbeing in patients with heart disease: relationship and comparison between health-related quality of life instruments

Brief Communication

Trials with proxy-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR)

OriginalPaper

The weight-specific adolescent instrument for economic evaluation (WAItE): psychometric evaluation using a Rasch model approach