Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:21:49.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing short form and RAND physical and mental health summary scores: Results from total hip arthroplasty and high-risk primary-care patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2004

Chris M. Blanchard ,
Isabelle Côté  and
David Feeny
Chris M. Blanchard
Affiliation:
American Cancer Society
Isabelle Côté
Affiliation:
Innovus Research Inc
David Feeny
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics University of Alberta Health Utilities Incorporated
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Summary physical health scores for the Short Form (SF) measures are computing using positive weights for physical items and negative weights for mental health items. Mental health summary scores use positive weights for mental items and negative weights for physical. The RAND Health Status Inventory (HSI) measures do not use negative weights. Do these different approaches to scoring matter? The objective was to compare summary scores using both the SF and RAND-HSI.

Methods: SF-36 and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) were administered to a cohort of patients waiting for elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). SF-12 and HUI3 were administered to a cohort of high-risk primary-care patients. Summary scores were generated and compared. Single-attribute utility scores for emotion in HUI3 were also computed. Canadian and US norms for SF, RAND-HSI, and HUI3 were used to interpret results.

Results: For THA patients, mean physical health scores were 28 and 36 for SF and RAND-HSI. Mean mental health scores were 55 and 42. For the primary-care patients, the scores were 34 and 36 for physical and 46 and 40 for mental health.

Conclusions: SF and RAND-HSI provided somewhat similar summary scores in the THA study. However, SF and RAND-HSI mental health scores differed in the primary-care patient cohort and results from HUI3 corroborate the mental health deficits identified by the RAND-HSI. It may be wise for investigators to use both SF and RAND-HSI scoring systems.

Keywords

HUI3RAND-36RAND-12SF-36SF-12
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 230 - 235
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Birbeck G, Kim S, Hays RD, Vickery BG. 2000 Quality of life measures in epilepsy. How well can they detect change over time? Neurology. 54: 1822– 1827.Google Scholar
Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. 2000 A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 17: 13– 35.Google Scholar
Côté I, Farris KB, Feeny D, et al. 2002 Using multi-disciplinary teams to improve primary care: Quality of medication use in the community. Institute of Health Economics Working Paper No. 02-01, February,
Farris K, Côté I, Feeny D, Johnson JA, et al. Using multi-disciplinary teams to enhance primary health care: A demonstration project. Can Fam Physician. forthcoming.
Feeny D, Torrance GW, Furlong W. 1996 Health Utilities Index. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 239– 251.
Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. 2002 Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 40: 113– 128.Google Scholar
Feeny D, Blanchard C, Mahon JL, et al. 2003 Comparing community-preference based and direct standard gamble utility scores: Evidence from elective total hip arthroplasty. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 19: 361– 371.Google Scholar
Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr RD. 2001 The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 33: 375– 384.Google Scholar
Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. 1993 The Rand 36-item health survey 1.0.” Health Econ. 2: 217– 227.Google Scholar
Hays RD. 1998 R36 H.S.I. Rand 36 – 36 health status inventory. Orlando: The Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Brace & Company;
Hays RD. 1998 Item response theory models. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM, eds. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: Methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 183– 190.
Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. 2000 Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 38: II28– II42.Google Scholar
Hays RD, Morales LS. 2001 The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Ann Med. 33: 350– 357.Google Scholar
Hopman WM, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, et al. 2000 Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study Research Group. Can Med Assoc J. 163: 265– 271.Google Scholar
Mahon JL, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, et al. 2002 The effect of waiting for elective total hip arthroplasty on health-related quality of life. Can Med Assoc J. 167: 1115– 1121.Google Scholar
Nortvedt MW, Riise T, Myhr KI, Nyland HI. 2000 Performance of the SF-36, SF-12, and RAND-36 summary scales in a multiple sclerosis population. Med Care. 38: 1022– 1028.Google Scholar
Revicki DA, Cella DF. 1997 Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: Item response theory, item banking, and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res. 6: 595– 600.Google Scholar
Simon GE, Revicki DA, Grothaus L, Vonkorff M. 1998 SF-36 Summary scores. Are physical and mental health truly distinct? Med Care. 36: 567– 572.Google Scholar
Taft C, Karlsson J, Sullivan M. 2001 Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores? Qual Life Res. 10: 395– 404.Google Scholar
Taft C, Karlsson J, Sullivan M. 2001 Reply to Drs. Ware and Kosinski. Qual Life Res. 10: 415– 420.Google Scholar
Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. 1993 SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston: New England Medical Center, The Health Institute;
Ware JE, Kosinski M. 2001 Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response. Qual Life Res. 10: 405– 413.Google Scholar
Wilson D, Parsons J, Tucker G. 2000 The SF-36 summary scales: Problems and solutions. Soz Praventivmed 45: 239– 246.Google Scholar