Literature DB >> 8998491

Responsiveness of the SF-36 and a condition-specific measure of health for patients with varicose veins.

A M Garratt1, D A Ruta, M I Abdalla, I T Russell.   

Abstract

Approaches to measuring patient perceptions of outcome for varicose veins were tested using a postal questionnaire incorporating a clinically derived specific measure of varicose veins severity and the SF-36 health survey. The questionnaire was administered to 373 patients with varicose veins, 287 of whom had been referred to hospital for their varicose veins and 86 who had just consulted a general practitioner for the condition. The response rate exceeded 75%. Test-retest reliability was assessed by mailing patients a similar questionnaire at two weeks. The validity of the two instruments was assessed by comparing patient scores to general practitioner ratings of symptom severity and complications associated with varicose veins. Standardized response means (mean change in scores divided by the standard deviation of the change in scores) were used to quantify and compare the responsiveness of the two measures. Levels of test-retest reliability, as assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient, were acceptable and the instruments appear to have good levels of validity. Patients who were or were not admitted to hospital for surgery on their veins had significant improvements in perceived health status on both the specific measure and the SF-36. The specific measure was the most responsive to changes in health status for both patients who were admitted to hospital for surgery and those receiving alternative forms of management. These two approaches might be suitable as part of a package of outcome measures for use in clinical trials to assess the effectiveness of different interventions for varicose veins.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8998491     DOI: 10.1007/bf00434744

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


  30 in total

1.  Assessment of stripping the long saphenous vein in the treatment of primary varicose veins.

Authors:  S Sarin; J H Scurr; P D Coleridge Smith
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 2.  Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life.

Authors:  D L Patrick; R A Deyo
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Hookers and French strippers: a technique for varicose vein surgery.

Authors:  J F Chester; R S Taylor
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 6.939

4.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance.

Authors:  R A Deyo; R M Centor
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1986

5.  A methodological framework for assessing health indices.

Authors:  B Kirshner; G Guyatt
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1985

Review 6.  Modern treatment of varicose veins.

Authors:  B Eklof
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  A measure of quality of life for clinical trials in chronic lung disease.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; L B Berman; M Townsend; S O Pugsley; L W Chambers
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 9.139

8.  Towards measurement of outcome for patients with varicose veins.

Authors:  A M Garratt; L M Macdonald; D A Ruta; I T Russell; J K Buckingham; Z H Krukowski
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1993-03

9.  Venous thromboembolism and other venous disease in the Tecumseh community health study.

Authors:  W W Coon; P W Willis; J B Keller
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1973-10       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency in Brazil: prevalence among 1755 inhabitants of a country town.

Authors:  F H Maffei; C Magaldi; S Z Pinho; S Lastoria; W Pinho; W B Yoshida; H A Rollo
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 7.196

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments.

Authors:  S J Coons; S Rao; D L Keininger; R D Hays
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  A comparison of responsiveness indices in multiple sclerosis patients.

Authors:  L E Pfennings; H M van der Ploeg; L Cohen; C H Polman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation.

Authors:  C B Terwee; F W Dekker; W M Wiersinga; M F Prummel; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Positive Outcomes of Varicose Vein Surgery: The Patient Perspective.

Authors:  Wei-Han Cheng; Haridarshan Patel; Wan-Ju Lee; Fang-Ju Lin; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Heartbeat sensitivity in adults with congenital heart disease.

Authors:  Simon Rietveld; Petra A Karsdorp; Barbara J M Mulder
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2004

6.  Patient centred assessment of quality of life for patients with four common conditions.

Authors:  D A Ruta; A M Garratt; I T Russell
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1999-03

7.  Endovascular laser therapy for varicose veins: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2010-04-01

8.  Endovascular radiofrequency ablation for varicose veins: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2011-02-01

9.  Is a generic quality of life instrument helpful for evaluating women with urinary incontinence?

Authors:  Seung-June Oh; Ja Hyeon Ku
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research.

Authors:  Berrie Middel; Eric van Sonderen
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2002-12-17       Impact factor: 5.120

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.