Literature DB >> 15209183

Comparing short form and RAND physical and mental health summary scores: results from total hip arthroplasty and high-risk primary-care patients.

Chris M Blanchard1, Isabelle Côté, David Feeny.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Summary physical health scores for the Short Form (SF) measures are computing using positive weights for physical items and negative weights for mental health items. Mental health summary scores use positive weights for mental items and negative weights for physical. The RAND Health Status Inventory (HSI) measures do not use negative weights. Do these different approaches to scoring matter? The objective was to compare summary scores using both the SF and RAND-HSI.
METHODS: SF-36 and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) were administered to a cohort of patients waiting for elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). SF-12 and HUI3 were administered to a cohort of high-risk primary-care patients. Summary scores were generated and compared. Single-attribute utility scores for emotion in HUI3 were also computed. Canadian and US norms for SF, RAND-HSI, and HUI3 were used to interpret results.
RESULTS: For THA patients, mean physical health scores were 28 and 36 for SF and RAND-HSI. Mean mental health scores were 55 and 42. For the primary-care patients, the scores were 34 and 36 for physical and 46 and 40 for mental health.
CONCLUSIONS: SF and RAND-HSI provided somewhat similar summary scores in the THA study. However, SF and RAND-HSI mental health scores differed in the primary-care patient cohort and results from HUI3 corroborate the mental health deficits identified by the RAND-HSI. It may be wise for investigators to use both SF and RAND-HSI scoring systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15209183     DOI: 10.1017/s0266462304001011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care        ISSN: 0266-4623            Impact factor:   2.188


  6 in total

1.  Impaired renal function is associated with worse self-reported outcomes after kidney transplantation.

Authors:  Luca Neri; Jonathan Dukes; Daniel C Brennan; Paulo R Salvalaggio; Susmitha Seelam; Srividya Desiraju; Mark Schnitzler
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-04-11       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Challenges with health-related quality of life assessment in arthroplasty patients: problems and solutions.

Authors:  Jasvinder Singh; Jeff A Sloan; Norman A Johanson
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.020

3.  Non-pharmacological care for patients with generalized osteoarthritis: design of a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Thomas J Hoogeboom; Mirelle J P M Stukstette; Rob A de Bie; Jessica Cornelissen; Alfons A den Broeder; Cornelia H M van den Ende
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  Impact of physical activity and sleep quality on quality of life of rural residents with and without a history of cancer: findings of the Day and Night Study.

Authors:  Carlin Rafie; Yi Ning; Aiping Wang; Xiang Gao; Robert Houlihan
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 3.989

5.  All-arthroscopic versus mini-open repair of small or moderate-sized rotator cuff tears: a protocol for a randomized trial [NCT00128076].

Authors:  Joy C MacDermid; Richard Holtby; Helen Razmjou; Dianne Bryant
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-03-10       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 Health Survey, V.I.

Authors:  Sepideh S Farivar; William E Cunningham; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2007-09-07       Impact factor: 3.186

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.