Alex Papou1, Salma Hussain2, Daniel McWilliams3, Weiya Zhang4, Michael Doherty3. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Queen's Medical Centre, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK. 2. Frimley Park Hospital, Portsmouth Road, Frimley, GU16 7UJ, UK. 3. Division of Rheumatology, Orthopaedics and Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Academic Rheumatology, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. 4. Division of Rheumatology, Orthopaedics and Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Academic Rheumatology, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. Weiya.Zhang@nottingham.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: (1) To assess the responsiveness of the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and Patient Generated Index (PGI) in people with knee pain who were givenoral analgesics; and (2) to perform content analysis of the SF-36 and PGI aiming to identify differences between the instruments and causes of different responsiveness. METHODS: An observational study nested within a randomised controlled trial comparing oral paracetamol, ibuprofen or a combination of the two in 884 community-derived people with chronic knee pain. Each participant was given the SF-36 and PGI questionnaires to fill out at baseline, day 10, week 7 and week 13 after commencement on analgesia. Responsiveness was measured as a standardised response mean from baseline, and contents of the instruments were analysed. RESULTS: The PGI showed the greater responsiveness to analgesics than the SF-36 throughout the study period. Only the Bodily Pain Score of the SF-36 showed comparable responsiveness to the PGI. The standardised response mean of the PGI at 13 weeks was 0.61 (95% CI 0.51-0.72), and that of the Bodily Pain Score of the SF-36 was 0.49 (95% CI 0.39-0.58). Content analysis of the PGI identified multiple areas which are not represented in the SF-36 which may help explain its performance. CONCLUSIONS: Overall the PGI is more responsive than the SF-36 to commonly used oral analgesics taken for knee pain. The PGI is able to elicit areas of individualised health-related quality of life which are not captured by the SF-36.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: (1) To assess the responsiveness of the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and Patient Generated Index (PGI) in people with knee pain who were given oral analgesics; and (2) to perform content analysis of the SF-36 and PGI aiming to identify differences between the instruments and causes of different responsiveness. METHODS: An observational study nested within a randomised controlled trial comparing oral paracetamol, ibuprofen or a combination of the two in 884 community-derived people with chronic knee pain. Each participant was given the SF-36 and PGI questionnaires to fill out at baseline, day 10, week 7 and week 13 after commencement on analgesia. Responsiveness was measured as a standardised response mean from baseline, and contents of the instruments were analysed. RESULTS: The PGI showed the greater responsiveness to analgesics than the SF-36 throughout the study period. Only the Bodily Pain Score of the SF-36 showed comparable responsiveness to the PGI. The standardised response mean of the PGI at 13 weeks was 0.61 (95% CI 0.51-0.72), and that of the Bodily Pain Score of the SF-36 was 0.49 (95% CI 0.39-0.58). Content analysis of the PGI identified multiple areas which are not represented in the SF-36 which may help explain its performance. CONCLUSIONS: Overall the PGI is more responsive than the SF-36 to commonly used oral analgesics taken for knee pain. The PGI is able to elicit areas of individualised health-related quality of life which are not captured by the SF-36.
Authors: Donald L Patrick; Laurie B Burke; Chad J Gwaltney; Nancy Kline Leidy; Mona L Martin; Elizabeth Molsen; Lena Ring Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Donald L Patrick; Laurie B Burke; Chad J Gwaltney; Nancy Kline Leidy; Mona L Martin; Elizabeth Molsen; Lena Ring Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: F Rannou; I Boutron; M Jardinaud-Lopez; G Meric; M Revel; J Fermanian; S Poiraudeau Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Amanda O Leopoldino; Gustavo C Machado; Paulo H Ferreira; Marina B Pinheiro; Richard Day; Andrew J McLachlan; David J Hunter; Manuela L Ferreira Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-02-25
Authors: Jonathan Mwangi; Laura Ternent; Patricia Opondo Awiti Ujiji; Edwin Were; Anna Mia Ekström Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 2.809