Literature DB >> 8410094

Change in self-reported functioning in older persons entering a residential care facility.

A L Siu1, J G Ouslander, D Osterweil, D B Reuben, R D Hays.   

Abstract

We evaluated the responsiveness of measures of function in admissions to a long-term care facility. Between baseline and follow-up assessment, one-fifth or more of the subjects either worsened or improved in most aspects of reported function. We compared two measures of self-reported function (COOP charts and a short-form survey). Convergent validity was observed for changes in pain, social health, and mental health (r = 0.39-0.74), but not for physical functioning. Although the short-form physical function measure discriminated worsening on several performance-based external criteria of physical functioning (area under ROC curves up to 0.82), the COOP and other measures of physical functioning were less likely to do so. All physical function measures were less responsive for detecting improvement. Clinicians and investigators intending to monitor change in function must consider the responsiveness of their measures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8410094     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90108-d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  8 in total

Review 1.  A review of health-related quality-of-life measures in stroke.

Authors:  B A Golomb; B G Vickrey; R D Hays
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Health status assessment of the elderly.

Authors:  I Turpie; D Strang; P Darzins; G Guyatt
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Sensitivity to change of health status measures in a randomized controlled trial: comparison of the COOP charts and the SF-36.

Authors:  C Jenkinson; K Lawrence; D McWhinnie; J Gordon
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Using multidimensional health measures in older persons to identify risk of hospitalization and skilled nursing placement.

Authors:  A L Siu; D B Reuben; J G Ouslander; D Osterweil
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures.

Authors:  R D Hays; R Anderson; D Revicki
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of quality of life assessment and six minute walk test in elderly heart failure patients.

Authors:  S T O'Keeffe; M Lye; C Donnellan; D N Carmichael
Journal:  Heart       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 5.994

7.  Measuring change over time: a comparison of results from a global single item of health status and the multi-dimensional SF-36 health status survey questionnaire in patients presenting with menorrhagia.

Authors:  C Jenkinson; V Peto; A Coulter
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses.

Authors:  K C Sneeuw; N K Aaronson; M A Sprangers; S B Detmar; L D Wever; J H Schornagel
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 7.640

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.