Literature DB >> 16047501

Comparing SF-36 scores across three groups of women with different health profiles.

Kathleen J Yost1, Mary N Haan, Richard A Levine, Ellen B Gold.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) facilitates the comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQL) across independent studies.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the scores of eight scales and two summary scales of the SF-36 across participants in the Women's Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) trial, the Women's Health Initiative-Dietary Modification trial (WHI-DM), and the MOS, and to illustrate the use of effect sizes for interpreting the importance of group differences.
METHODS: WHEL and WHI-DM are both multi-center dietary interventions; only data from the UC Davis sites were used in our study. WHEL participants had a recent history of breast cancer, WHI-DM participants were healthy, postmenopausal women, and women in the MOS had a history of hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, or depression. General linear models were used to identify statistically significant differences in scale scores. Meaningful differences were determined by effect sizes computed using a common within-group standard deviation (SD) and SDs from normative data.
RESULTS: After adjusting for age and marital status, SF-36 scores for the WHI-DM and WHEL samples were similar and both had statistically significantly higher scores than the MOS sample. Relative to the WHEL or WHI-DM studies, MOS scores for scales related to the physical domain were clearly meaningfully lower whereas scale scores related to the mental health domain were potentially meaningfully lower.
CONCLUSIONS: The HRQL of breast cancer survivors is comparable to that of healthy women and better than that of women with chronic health conditions, particularly with respect to physical health. This study illustrated the use of ranges of effects sizes for aiding the interpretation of SF-36 scores differences across independent studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16047501     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-6673-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  29 in total

1.  The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?

Authors:  R D Hays; J M Woolley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Causes and consequences of comorbidity: a review.

Authors:  R Gijsen; N Hoeymans; F G Schellevis; D Ruwaard; W A Satariano; G A van den Bos
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Psychological and physical adjustment to breast cancer over 4 years: identifying distinct trajectories of change.

Authors:  Vicki S Helgeson; Pamela Snyder; Howard Seltman
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  Life after breast cancer: understanding women's health-related quality of life and sexual functioning.

Authors:  P A Ganz; J H Rowland; K Desmond; B E Meyerowitz; G E Wyatt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  The persistent impact of breast carcinoma on functional health status: prospective evidence from the Nurses' Health Study.

Authors:  Y L Michael; I Kawachi; L F Berkman; M D Holmes; G A Colditz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-12-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Design of the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study. The Women's Health Initiative Study Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1998-02

7.  What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592.

Authors:  David Cella; David T Eton; Diane L Fairclough; Philip Bonomi; Anne E Heyes; Cheryl Silberman; Michael K Wolf; David H Johnson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 8.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; David Osoba; Albert W Wu; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Geoffrey R Norman
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.616

9.  Impact of medical and demographic factors on long-term quality of life and body image of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  K Härtl; W Janni; R Kästner; H Sommer; B Strobl; B Rack; M Stauber
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 32.976

10.  A randomized trial of the effect of a plant-based dietary pattern on additional breast cancer events and survival: the Women's Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) Study.

Authors:  John P Pierce; Susan Faerber; Fred A Wright; Cheryl L Rock; Vicky Newman; Shirley W Flatt; Sheila Kealey; Vicky E Jones; Bette J Caan; Ellen B Gold; Mary Haan; Kathryn A Hollenbach; Lovell Jones; James R Marshall; Cheryl Ritenbaugh; Marcia L Stefanick; Cynthia Thomson; Linda Wasserman; Loki Natarajan; Ronald G Thomas; Elizabeth A Gilpin
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2002-12
View more
  21 in total

Review 1.  American Gastroenterological Association technical review on constipation.

Authors:  Adil E Bharucha; John H Pemberton; G Richard Locke
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Pain in long-term breast cancer survivors: frequency, severity, and impact.

Authors:  Mark P Jensen; Hao-Yuan Chang; Yeur-Hur Lai; Karen L Syrjala; Jesse R Fann; Julie R Gralow
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 3.750

3.  Life-course impact of child maltreatment on midlife health-related quality of life in women: longitudinal mediation analysis for potential pathways.

Authors:  Hsing-Hua S Lin; Ashley I Naimi; Maria M Brooks; Gale A Richardson; Jessica G Burke; Joyce T Bromberger
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2020-01-18       Impact factor: 3.797

4.  Child maltreatment as a social determinant of midlife health-related quality of life in women: do psychosocial factors explain this association?

Authors:  Hsing-Hua S Lin; Ashley I Naimi; Maria M Brooks; Gale A Richardson; Jessica G Burke; Joyce T Bromberger
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-08-18       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Possible socioeconomic and ethnic disparities in quality of life in a cohort of breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Deborah J Bowen; Catherine M Alfano; Bonnie A McGregor; Alan Kuniyuki; Leslie Bernstein; Kathy Meeske; Kathy B Baumgartner; Josala Fetherolf; Bryce B Reeve; Ashley Wilder Smith; Patricia A Ganz; Anne McTiernan; Rachel Ballard Barbash
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2007-01-27       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Access to oral health care and self-reported health status among low-income adults living with HIV/AIDS.

Authors:  Sara S Bachman; Angela W Walter; Amarachi Umez-Eronini
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.792

Review 7.  Chronic Constipation.

Authors:  Adil E Bharucha; Arnold Wald
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 7.616

8.  Evaluation of Long-Term Satisfaction with Breast Surgery in Patients Treated for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Population-Based Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Authors:  Devon Livingston-Rosanoff; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Polly A Newcomb; Lee G Wilke
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Pharmacoeconomic study of chronic constipation in a secondary care centre.

Authors:  C Walsh; J Murphy; E M M Quigley
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 1.568

10.  Impact of road traffic noise annoyance on health-related quality of life: results from a population-based study.

Authors:  Julia Dratva; Elisabeth Zemp; Denise Felber Dietrich; Pierre-Olivier Bridevaux; Thierry Rochat; Christian Schindler; Margaret W Gerbase
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-01-01       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.