Original ArticlePerformance of the Norwegian SF-36 Health Survey in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. II. A Comparison of the SF-36 with Disease-Specific Measures
Introduction
Assessment of health status in rheumatic diseases has become increasingly important in health service research, epidemiological studies, and clinical trials. Data from such studies may be used to evaluate the benefits of health care and target therapeutic interventions. Disease-specific instruments have been and are still the most widely used for the assessment of patient outcomes in rheumatic diseases. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) [1] and the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS) [2] have since 1980 obtained status as standards for measuring disability and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in rheumatic diseases. The disability part of the HAQ has been modified to a shorter eight-item version (Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire [MHAQ] 3, 4 and the AIMS has been revised, extended, and improved (AIMS2) [5].
Comparisons across different diseases and conditions and with the normal population are more easily obtained with generic than with disease-specific instruments. Such comparisons are important in the context of resource and policy decisions 6, 7. Recently, generic instruments providing health profiles have been used in an increasing number of studies of rheumatic patients. Among these instruments are the Sickness Impact Profile [8] and the Nottingham Health Profile [9].
The SF-36 is a more recently developed generic health status measure providing information for nine different aspects of health status 10, 11, 12. It has been used in a variety of conditions 13, 14 and in musculoskeletal disorders [15], including patients who have undergone knee and hip replacement surgery 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. The SF-36 may be a useful instrument in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) if it’s feasible and if the validity is satisfactory. It may even replace the disease-specific instruments in measuring the general concepts of HRQOL. Few data have been published on its use in RA and other inflammatory arthropathies 24, 25, 26.
The SF-36 has been translated, adapted, and tested cross-culturally among Norwegians according to guidelines from the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project 27, 28. This is the second article using the first empirical data set obtained after testing the SF-36 in a large and representative Norwegian patient population with RA [29]. Scores from the SF-36, visual analogue scales (VAS) for pain and fatigue, AIMS2 and MHAQ were obtained from 1030 patients with RA. In this article we compare the performance of the SF-36 with corresponding subscales of the AIMS2 and MHAQ and with scores from VAS measuring pain and fatigue. Correlations between related and unrelated scales are presented and known-group comparisons are used to document the sensitivity of the SF-36 and the other instruments between different cohorts.
Section snippets
Patients
A register of patients with RA has been established in the community of Oslo (472,000 inhabitants) comprising 1552 patients as of January 1994 [30]. The community offers a well organized health service with two rheumatology referral centers (the community department and the University clinic). Specialist referrals are restricted to the community, and there are no full-time private practice rheumatologists. The register includes all patients with RA ever examined at one of the two rheumatology
Results
The left part of Table 1 shows the mean scores of the nine SF-36 scales including reported health transition, the score for the MHAQ, the four main dimensions from the AIMS2 (except role), and the VAS scores for pain and fatigue. The percentage of patients with calculable scores of SF-36 scales ranged from 93.9 to 99.6. Calculable scores were obtained in similar percentages with the AIMS2 (97.6–99.2%) and MHAQ (97.6%), but compliance was lower with VAS (91.7–92.4%). Floor and ceiling effects
Discussion
Our study demonstrates that subscales of the SF-36 generally correlated strongly to VAS and scales from disease-specific measures intended to measure similar concepts. It has been assumed that generic measures are less able than disease-specific measures to discriminate between different levels of disease activity, but this assumption was not supported by the present study. The generic and disease-specific instruments also performed similarly regarding discrimination between patients with and
Acknowledgements
Supported in part with grants from the Norwegian Cancer Association, the Norwegian Research Council, the Norwegian Rheumatism Association, and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project from Glaxo Wellcome Inc. and Schering-Plough Corporation.
References (38)
- et al.
Predicting quality-of-life outcomes following total joint arthroplasty. Limitations of the SF-36 health status questionnaire
J Arthroplasty
(1995) - et al.
A comparison of different indices of responsiveness
J Clin Epidemiol
(1997) - et al.
Translation and performance of the Norwegian SF-36 Health Survey in patients with rheumatoid arthritisI. Data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity
J Clin Epidemiol
(1998) - et al.
The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey. 1. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability, and construct validity across general populations in Sweden
Soc Sci Med
(1995) - et al.
Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis
Arthritis Rheum
(1980) - et al.
Measuring health status in arthritis. The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales
Arthritis Rheum
(1980) - et al.
Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford health assessment questionnaire
Arthritis Rheum
(1983) - et al.
Self-report questionnaire scores in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional physical, radiographic, and laboratory measures
Ann Intern Med
(1989) - et al.
AIMS2. The content and properties of a revised and expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire
Arthritis Rheum
(1992) - et al.
Measuring health-related quality of life
Ann Intern Med
(1993)
Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life
Qual Life Res
The Sickness Impact ProfileConceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure
Int J Health Serv
Measuring health statusA new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists
J R Coll Gen Pract
The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection
Med Care
The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs
Med Care
The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups
Med Care
Comparative health status of patients with 11 common illnesses in Wales
J Epidemiol Community Health
Quality of life in asthma. I. Internal consistency and validity of the SF-36 questionnaire
Am Respir Crit Care Med
Cited by (166)
RNA and inflammatory autoimmune diseases
2020, RNA-Based Regulation in Human Health and DiseaseHealth related quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from Medellín-Colombia, 2014
2015, Revista Colombiana de ReumatologiaOptimal glucocorticoid replacement in adrenal insufficiency
2015, Best Practice and Research: Clinical Endocrinology and MetabolismFactors associated with health-related quality of life in people living with HIV in Norway
2023, Health and Quality of Life OutcomesHealth-related quality of life in gout, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis, results from a cross-sectional survey in Western Sweden
2023, Scandinavian Journal of RheumatologyHealth-related quality of life in parents of adolescents one year into the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-year longitudinal study
2022, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes