Literature DB >> 9240286

Comparison of responses to SF-36 Health Survey questions with one-week and four-week recall periods.

S D Keller1, M S Bayliss, J E Ware, M A Hsu, A M Damiano, T F Goss.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the measurement properties of acute (one-week recall) and standard (four-week recall) versions of SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) scale scores. DATA SOURCES: SF-36 data collected from 142 participants (60% female, average age 39) in a clinical trial of an asthma medication: 74 patients randomized to the acute form and 68 to the standard. DATA COLLECTION: The SF-36 was self-administered at the time of a clinic visit (before clinical examination) to synchronize with clinical measures of disease severity at three different time points during the clinical trial: -2 weeks (two weeks before randomization to treatment), baseline (week 0 or randomization), and +4 weeks (four weeks after baseline). PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: The acute form yielded high-quality data; scales conformed to the assumptions of the summated ratings method used to score the standard SF-36; and scales had good distributional properties, were reliable, and had a factor content similar to the standard. The data indicated that while the acute form was more sensitive than the standard to change in health status associated with changes in acute symptoms, acute scale scores may not be comparable to national norms based on the standard, particularly for those scales that assess frequency of health events during a specified time period.
CONCLUSIONS: Results support the use of the acute form in its intended applications; however, further research is required to document the generalizability of greater sensitivity of the acute form to recent changes in health and to explore whether norms based on the standard can be used to interpret the acute scale scores.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9240286      PMCID: PMC1070196     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  7 in total

1.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  The sickness impact profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure.

Authors:  M Bergner; R A Bobbitt; S Kressel; W E Pollard; B S Gilson; J R Morris
Journal:  Int J Health Serv       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 1.663

3.  Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

Authors:  J E Ware; M Kosinski; M S Bayliss; C A McHorney; W H Rogers; A Raczek
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey.

Authors:  C A McHorney; M Kosinski; J E Ware
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL-index for use by physicians.

Authors:  W O Spitzer; A J Dobson; J Hall; E Chesterman; J Levi; R Shepherd; R N Battista; B R Catchlove
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1981

6.  The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; J F Lu; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; A E Raczek
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 2.983

  7 in total
  38 in total

1.  A new tool for monitoring asthma outcomes: the ITG Asthma Short Form.

Authors:  M S Bayliss; D M Espindle; D Buchner; M S Blaiss; J E Ware
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  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

3.  [A hospital suited version of the German SF-36 and its psychometric comparison with the original questionnaire].

Authors:  H Müller; A Franke; P Schuck; K L Resch
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  2001

4.  Interference with activities due to pain and fatigue: accuracy of ratings across different reporting periods.

Authors:  Joan E Broderick; Stefan Schneider; Joseph E Schwartz; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  The responsiveness of disease-specific and generic health measures to changes in the severity of asthma among adults.

Authors:  J E Ware; J P Kemp; D A Buchner; A E Singer; K B Nolop; T F Goss
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  The psychometric validation of a 1-week recall period for the OAB-q.

Authors:  Karin S Coyne; Heather Gelhorn; Christine Thompson; Zoe S Kopp; Zhonghong Guan
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-07-08       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Ecological validity and clinical utility of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) instruments for detecting premenstrual symptoms of depression, anger, and fatigue.

Authors:  Doerte U Junghaenel; Stefan Schneider; Arthur A Stone; Christopher Christodoulou; Joan E Broderick
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 3.006

8.  Feasibility and construct validity of PROMIS and "legacy" instruments in an academic scleroderma clinic.

Authors:  Dinesh Khanna; Paul Maranian; Nan Rothrock; David Cella; Richard Gershon; Puja P Khanna; Brennan Spiegel; Daniel E Furst; Phil J Clements; Amber Bechtel; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2011-10-22       Impact factor: 5.725

9.  Health seeking behaviour and utilization of health facilities for schistosomiasis-related symptoms in ghana.

Authors:  Anthony Danso-Appiah; Wilma A Stolk; Kwabena M Bosompem; Joseph Otchere; Caspar W N Looman; J Dik F Habbema; Sake J de Vlas
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2010-11-02

10.  Measuring symptom distress and health-related quality of life in clinical trials of gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment: further validation of the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Assessment Scale (GSAS).

Authors:  Anne Damiano; Kathleen Handley; Ellen Adler; Reshmi Siddique; Ashoke Bhattacharyja
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.