Literature DB >> 10951722

Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study Research Group.

W M Hopman1, T Towheed, T Anastassiades, A Tenenhouse, S Poliquin, C Berger, L Joseph, J P Brown, T M Murray, J D Adachi, D A Hanley, E Papadimitropoulos.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form (SF-36) is a widely used measure of health-related quality of life. Normative data are the key to determining whether a group or an individual scores above or below the average for their country, age or sex. Published norms for the SF-36 exist for other countries but have not been previously published for Canada.
METHODS: The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study is a prospective cohort study involving 9423 randomly selected Canadian men and women aged 25 years or more living in the community. The sample was drawn within a 50-km radius of 9 Canadian cities, and the information collected included the SF-36 as a measure of health-related quality of life. This provided a unique opportunity to develop age- and sex-adjusted normative data for the Canadian population.
RESULTS: Canadian men scored substantially higher than women on all 8 domains and the 2 summary component scales of the SF-36. Canadians scored higher than their US counterparts on all SF-36 domains and both summary component scales and scored higher than their UK counterparts on 4 domains, although many of the differences are not large.
INTERPRETATION: The differences in the SF-36 scores between age groups, sexes and countries confirm that these Canadian norms are necessary for comparative purposes. The data will be useful for assessing the health status of the general population and of patient populations, and the effect of interventions on health-related quality of life.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10951722      PMCID: PMC80287     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  14 in total

1.  Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  C Jenkinson; S Stewart-Brown; S Petersen; C Paice
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Norms for the physical and mental health component summary scores of the SF-36 for young, middle-aged and older Australian women.

Authors:  G Mishra; M J Schofield
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Readying a US measure of health status, the SF-36, for use in Canada.

Authors:  S W Dauphinee; L Gauthier; B Gandek; L Magnan; U Pierre
Journal:  Clin Invest Med       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 0.825

5.  An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol instrument.

Authors:  M L Essink-Bot; P F Krabbe; G J Bonsel; N K Aaronson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

Authors:  J E Ware; M Kosinski; M S Bayliss; C A McHorney; W H Rogers; A Raczek
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age.

Authors:  C Jenkinson; A Coulter; L Wright
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-05-29

8.  The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; J F Lu; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; A E Raczek
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Is the SF-36 a valid measure of change in population health? Results from the Whitehall II Study.

Authors:  H Hemingway; M Stafford; S Stansfeld; M Shipley; M Marmot
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-11-15
View more
  196 in total

1.  The Canadian SF-36 health survey: normative data add to its value.

Authors:  S Wood-Dauphinee
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-08-08       Impact factor: 8.262

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

Authors:  Geeske Peeters; Michael Waller; Annette J Dobson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Determination of patient quality of life following severe acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  David Hochman; Brian Louie; Robert Bailey
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.089

4.  Is adherence to drug treatment correlated with health-related quality of life?

Authors:  Isabelle Côté; Karen Farris; David Feeny
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  Toward a model of quality of life for family caregivers of stroke survivors.

Authors:  Carole L White; Sylvie Lauzon; Mark J Yaffe; Sharon Wood-Dauphinee
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Contribution of frailty markers in explaining differences among individuals in five samples of older persons.

Authors:  Nadia Sourial; Howard Bergman; Sathya Karunananthan; Christina Wolfson; Jack Guralnik; Hélène Payette; Luis Gutierrez-Robledo; Dorly J H Deeg; John D Fletcher; Maria T E Puts; Bin Zhu; François Béland
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 6.053

Review 7.  Scoring the SF-36 in Orthopaedics: A Brief Guide.

Authors:  Nicholas C Laucis; Ron D Hays; Timothy Bhattacharyya
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Does the wait for lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis surgery have a detrimental effect on patient outcomes? A prospective observational study.

Authors:  Christopher S Bailey; Kevin R Gurr; Stewart I Bailey; David Taylor; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; Corinne Tallon; Yves Bureau; Jennifer C Urquhart
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2016-04-28

9.  Life after surgical resection of a meningioma: a prospective cross-sectional study evaluating health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Farshad Nassiri; Benjamin Price; Ameer Shehab; Karolyn Au; Michael D Cusimano; Michael D Jenkinson; Christine Jungk; Alireza Mansouri; Thomas Santarius; Suganth Suppiah; Ken X Teng; Gurvinder S Toor; Gelareh Zadeh; Tobias Walbert; Katharine J Drummond
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 12.300

10.  Optimizing a frail elderly patient for radical cystectomy with a prehabilitation program.

Authors:  Francesco Carli; Rashami Awasthi; Chelsia Gillis; Wassim Kassouf
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 1.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.