Literature DB >> 19330463

Validation and calibration of the SF-36 health transition question against an external criterion of clinical change in health status.

Stephanie A Knox1, Madeleine T King.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Cross-sectional surveys depend on retrospective health transition questions (HTQ) to estimate recent changes in health status. This paper assesses the validity of the SF-36 HTQ and calibrates its categories against change assessed prospectively on the SF-36 domain scales in a sub-group known to have experienced clinically important changes in health status.
METHODS: Adults (n = 9,649) from a longitudinal population survey completed the SF-36 in 2001 and 2002. Prospective measures were calculated as mean changes in SF-36 scale scores adjusted for age and gender, and also expressed as standardised response means. Comparison groups were those who had developed a long-term health condition since the last interview and the HTQ response categories for those who had not developed any new conditions.
RESULTS: Those with a new condition and those without a new condition but who described their health as "somewhat worse" than a year ago had comparable declines in health status on all domain scales except role physical, where those with a new condition experienced a greater decline.
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates the validity and limitations of the HTQ as a measure of change in population studies. The calibration is useful for interpreting the meaning of the HTQ categories at the group level but not at the individual level.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19330463     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-009-9467-1

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


  15 in total

1.  Do we know what global ratings of health-related quality of life measure?

Authors:  B Mozes; Y Maor; A Shmueli
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

Authors:  J A Husted; R J Cook; V T Farewell; D D Gladman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Health status assessment methods for adults: past accomplishments and future challenges.

Authors:  C A McHorney
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 21.981

4.  Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation.

Authors:  Dorcas E Beaton
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  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

6.  Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Ross D Crosby; Ronette L Kolotkin; G Rhys Williams
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Adaptation and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Australia.

Authors:  R W Sanson-Fisher; J J Perkins
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach.

Authors:  G R Norman; P Stratford; G Regehr
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

Authors:  R Jaeschke; J Singer; G H Guyatt
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-12

10.  Toward clinical applications of health status measures: sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes.

Authors:  R A Deyo; T S Inui
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 3.402

View more
  9 in total

1.  Self-rated health changes and oldest-old mortality.

Authors:  Eric M Vogelsang
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 4.077

2.  Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments.

Authors:  Amelia A Sorensen; Daniel Howard; Wen Hui Tan; Jeffrey Ketchersid; Ryan P Calfee
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 2.230

3.  Time-Restricted Eating Improves Quality of Life Measures in Overweight Humans.

Authors:  Ainslee Crose; Alison Alvear; Stephanie Singroy; Qi Wang; Emily Manoogian; Satchidananda Panda; Douglas G Mashek; Lisa S Chow
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 5.717

4.  Heart Attacks, Bloody Noses, and Other "Emotional Problems": Cultural and Conceptual Issues With the Spanish Translation of Self-Report Emotional Health Items.

Authors:  Michael A Flynn; Donald E Eggerth; C Jeffery Jacobson; Sarah M Lyon
Journal:  Fam Community Health       Date:  2021 Jan/Mar

5.  Effectiveness of e-Health cardiac rehabilitation program on quality of life associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression in moderate-risk patients.

Authors:  Raquel Bravo-Escobar; Alicia González-Represas; Adela María Gómez-González; Ángela Heredia-Torres
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  How much of the effect of disability acquisition on mental health is mediated through employment and income? A causal mediation analysis quantifying interventional indirect effects using data from four waves of an Australian cohort study.

Authors:  Zoe Aitken; Julie Anne Simpson; Rebecca Bentley; Anne Marie Kavanagh
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Minimal clinically important difference of the Trapeziometacarpal Arthrosis Symptoms and Disability questionnaire.

Authors:  Matthew Florczynski; Daniel Antflek; Heather Baltzer
Journal:  J Hand Surg Eur Vol       Date:  2022-06-14

Review 8.  Patient reports of the outcomes of treatment: a structured review of approaches.

Authors:  Helen Lloyd; Crispin Jenkinson; Monica Hadi; Elizabeth Gibbons; Ray Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 3.186

9.  Clinical, Functional, and Biological Correlates of Cognitive Dimensions in Major Depressive Disorder - Rationale, Design, and Characteristics of the Cognitive Function and Mood Study (CoFaM-Study).

Authors:  Bernhard T Baune; Tracy Air
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 4.157

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.