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

被引:12
作者
Blanchard, CM [1 ]
Côté, I
Feeny, D
机构
[1] Amer Canc Soc, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA
[2] Univ Alberta, Inst Hlth Econ, Hlth Utilities Inc, Edmonton, AB T6G 2M7, Canada
关键词
HUI3; RAND-36; RAND-12; SF-36; SF-12;
D O I
10.1017/S0266462304001011
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:230 / 235
页数:6
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   Quality of life measures in epilepsy - How well can they detect change over time? [J].
Birbeck, GL ;
Kim, S ;
Hays, RD ;
Vickrey, BG .
NEUROLOGY, 2000, 54 (09) :1822-1827
[2]   A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments [J].
Coons, SJ ;
Rao, S ;
Keininger, DL ;
Hays, RD .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2000, 17 (01) :13-35
[3]  
COTE I, 2002, 0201 I HLTH EC
[4]  
FARRIS K, IN PRESS CAN FAM PHY
[5]   Comparing community-preference-based and direct standard gamble utility scores: Evidence from elective total hip arthroplasty [J].
Feeny, D ;
Blanchard, C ;
Mahon, JL ;
Bourne, R ;
Rorabeck, C ;
Stitt, L ;
Webster-Bogaert, S .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2003, 19 (02) :362-372
[6]   Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system [J].
Feeny, D ;
Furlong, W ;
Torrance, GW ;
Goldsmith, CH ;
Zhu, ZL ;
DePauw, S ;
Denton, M ;
Boyle, M .
MEDICAL CARE, 2002, 40 (02) :113-128
[7]  
Feeny D., 1996, QUALITY LIFE PHARMAC, P239
[8]   The Health Utilities Index (HUI®) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies [J].
Furlong, WJ ;
Feeny, DH ;
Torrance, GW ;
Barr, RD .
ANNALS OF MEDICINE, 2001, 33 (05) :375-384
[9]  
Hays R D, 1993, Health Econ, V2, P217, DOI 10.1002/hec.4730020305
[10]  
Hays RD, 2000, MED CARE, V38, P28