The swedish rand-36 health survey-reliability and responsiveness assessed in patient populations using svensson’s method for paired ordinal data

被引：99

作者：

Orwelius L. ^{[1
,10
]}

Nilsson M. ^{[2
]}

Nilsson E. ^{[3
]}

Wenemark M. ^{[4
,5
]}

Walfridsson U. ^{[4
,6
]}

Lundström M. ^{[7
]}

Taft C. ^{[8
]}

Palaszewski B. ^{[9
]}

Kristenson M. ^{[4
,5
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping

[2] Futurum,-Academy for Health and Care, Region Jönköping County, Jönköping

[3] QRC Stockholm Research Unit, Medical Management Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm

[4] Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping

[5] Centre for Organisational support and Development, Region Östergötland, Linköping

[6] Department of Cardiology, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping

[7] Department of Clinical Sciences, Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund

[8] Centre of registers, Västra Götaland, Göteborg

[9] Data Management and Analysis, Region Västra Götaland, Göteborg

[10] Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital, Linkoping

来源：

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes | / 2卷 / 1期

关键词：

Health-related quality of life; Patient-reported outcome measure; Psychometrics; SF-36; Translations; Validation;

D O I：

10.1186/s41687-018-0030-0

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: The Short Form 36-Item Survey is one of the most commonly used instruments for assessing health-related quality of life. Two identical versions of the original instrument are currently available: the public domain, license free RAND-36 and the commercial SF-36. RAND-36 is not available in Swedish. The purpose of this study was threefold: to translate and culturally adapt the RAND-36 into Swedish; to evaluate its reliability and responsiveness using Svensson’s method for paired ordered categorical data; and to assess the usability of an electronic version of the questionnaire. The translation process included forward and backward translations and reconciliation. Test-retest reliability was examined during a period of two-weeks in 84 patients undergoing dialysis for chronic kidney disease. Responsiveness was examined in 97 patients before and 2 months after a cardiac rehabilitation program. Usability tests and cognitive debriefing of the electronic questionnaire were carried out with 18 patients. Results: The Swedish translation of the RAND-36 was conceptually equivalent to the English version. Test-retest reliability was supported by non-significant relative position (RP) values among dialysis patients for all RAND-36 subscales (range − 0.02 to 0.10; all confidence intervals (CI) included zero). Responsiveness was demonstrated by significant improvements in RP values among cardiac rehabilitation patients for all subscales (range 0.22–0.36; lower limits of all CI > 0.1) except two subscales (General health, RP-0.02; CI-0.13 to 0.10; and Role functioning/emotional, RP 0.03; CI-0.09 to 0.16). In cardiac rehabilitation patients, sizable individual variation (RV > 0.2) was also shown for the Pain, Energy/fatigue and Social functioning subscales. The electronic version of RAND-36 was found easy and intuitive to use. Conclusions: Our results provide evidence supporting the reliability and responsiveness of the newly translated Swedish RAND-36 and the user-friendliness of the electronic version. Svensson’s method for paired ordinal data was able to characterize not only the direction and size of differences among the patients’ responses at different time points but also variations in response patterns within groups. The method is therefore, besides being suitable for ordinal data, also an important and novel tool for gaining insights into patients’ response patterns to treatment or interventions, thus informing individualized care. © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access.

引用

共 33 条

[1]

Boyce M.B., Browne J.P., Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review, Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 22, 9, pp. 2265-2278, (2013)

[2]

Emilsson L., Lindahl B., Koster M., Lambe M., Ludvigsson J.F., Review of 103 Swedish healthcare quality registries, Journal of Internal Medicine, 277, 1, pp. 94-136, (2015)

[3]

Nilsson E., Orwelius L., Kristenson M., Patient-reported outcomes in the Swedish National Quality Registers, Journal of Internal Medicine, 279, 2, pp. 141-153, (2016)

[4]

Steward A.L., Sherbourne C., Hayes R.D., Et al., Summary and discussion of MOS measures, Measures Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcome Study Approach, pp. 345-371, (1992)

[5]

Hays R.D., Sherbourne C.D., Mazel R.M., The RAND 36-item health survey 1.0, Health Economics, 2, 3, pp. 217-227, (1993)

[6]

Ware J.E., Sherbourne C.D., The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection, Medical Care, 30, 6, pp. 473-483, (1992)

[7]

Sullivan M., Karlsson J., Ware J.E., The Swedish SF-36 health survey–I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden, Social Science & Medicine, 41, 10, pp. 1349-1358, (1995)

[8]

Svensson E., Construction of a single global scale for multi-item assessments of the same variable, Statistics in Medicine, 20, 24, pp. 3831-3846, (2001)

[9]

Svensson E., Different ranking approaches defining association and agreement measures of paired ordinal data, Statistics in Medicine, 31, 26, pp. 3104-3117, (2012)

[10]

Stevens S., On the theory of scales of measurement, Science, 103, pp. 677-680, (1946)

← 1 2 3 4 →