Literature DB >> 1405797

Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments.

J N Katz1, M G Larson, C B Phillips, A H Fossel, M H Liang.   

Abstract

Short measures of health status are used increasingly in health services research, yet their sensitivities to clinical change have not been compared with longer, established instruments. In this study, 5 health status measures were administered preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively to 54 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. These instruments included the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP)--an established, long measure--and 4 short forms: the SF-36, Functional Status Questionnaire, shortened Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales, and Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire. Scores for physical, psychological, and global dimensions were constructed by aggregating subscales. Sensitivity to change, or responsiveness, was expressed with the standardized response mean (SRM), calculated as the mean change in score divided by the standard deviation of the change in score. The sampling distribution of the SRM was estimated with a jackknife procedure. Preoperative scores were moderately to highly correlated across instruments. The physical and global dimension SRMs of the brief health status measures ranged from 0.85 to 1.27 and were as large as or larger than the corresponding SIP SRMs. The SIP had the highest SRM on the psychological dimension. None of the instruments was significantly more sensitive than the others at the critical value (P = 0.005) adjusted for multiple comparisons. The brief health status measures were equally or more responsive than the SIP after total hip arthroplasty in the physical and global dimensions. Much larger samples are required to demonstrate statistically significant differences in SRMs among instruments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1405797     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199210000-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  105 in total

1.  A comparison of responsiveness indices in multiple sclerosis patients.

Authors:  L E Pfennings; H M van der Ploeg; L Cohen; C H Polman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation.

Authors:  C B Terwee; F W Dekker; W M Wiersinga; M F Prummel; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Prospective versus retrospective measurement of change in health status: a community based study in Geneva, Switzerland.

Authors:  T V Perneger; J F Etter; A Rougemont
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Evaluation of Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Taiwan version in assessing elderly patients with hip fracture.

Authors:  Yea-Ing Lotus Shyu; Jui-fen Rachel Lu; Jersey Liang
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  The SIP68: an abbreviated sickness impact profile for disability outcomes research.

Authors:  Upasana Nanda; Patricia M McLendon; Elena M Andresen; Eric Armbrecht
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Development of the Short Form Endometriosis Health Profile Questionnaire: the EHP-5.

Authors:  Georgina Jones; Crispin Jenkinson; Stephen Kennedy
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Primary hip and knee replacement surgery: Ontario criteria for case selection and surgical priority.

Authors:  C D Naylor; J I Williams
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1996-03

8.  Validation of the Chinese Version of the Quality of Recovery-15 Score and Its Comparison with the Post-Operative Quality Recovery Scale.

Authors:  Xue-Shan Bu; Jing Zhang; Yun-Xia Zuo
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 9.  Quality of life in older people: a structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments.

Authors:  K L Haywood; A M Garratt; R Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Dependence of the minimal clinically important improvement on the baseline value is a consequence of floor and ceiling effects and not different expectations by patients.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Lori C Guthrie; Maria Alba
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-02-17       Impact factor: 6.437

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.