nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.12.2007

Respondent satisfaction regarding SF-36 and EQ-5D, and patients’ perspectives concerning health outcome assessment within routine health care

verfasst von: Evalill Nilsson, Marika Wenemark, Preben Bendtsen, Margareta Kristenson

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 10/2007

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To investigate respondent satisfaction regarding SF-36 and EQ-5D and patients’ perspectives concerning health outcome assessment within routine health care.

Methods

Eighteen Swedish hospitals participated in the study which included 30 patient intervention groups (e.g. education groups for patients with ischemic heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Patients responded to SF-36 and EQ-5D before and after ordinary interventions (n = 463), and then completed an evaluation form.

Results

Regarding respondent satisfaction, most patients found both questionnaires easy to understand (70% vs. 75% for SF-36 and EQ-5D respectively), easy to respond to (54% vs. 60%), and that they gave the ability of describing their health in a comprehensive way (68% for both). Health outcome assessment in routine health care was perceived as valuable by 57% of the patients, while 4% disapproved. Most patients (68%) considered both questionnaires equally suitable; 25% preferred SF-36 and 8% EQ-5D. Among those who were more satisfied with a short questionnaire (EQ-5D), several still preferred a longer and more comprehensive questionnaire (SF-36).

Conclusion

Health outcome assessment within routine health care seems to be acceptable, and even appreciated, by patients. Questionnaire length and ease of response were not found to be crucial arguments in choosing between SF-36 and EQ-5D.

Garratt, A., Schmidt, L., Mackintosh, A., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2002). Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. British Medical Journal, 324, 1417.PubMedCrossRef

Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The Mos 36-Item short-form health survey (Sf-36). 1. Conceptual-framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.PubMedCrossRef

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.PubMedCrossRef

Bowling, A. (1995). What things are important in peoples lives – A survey of the publics judgments to inform scales of health-related quality-of-life. Social Science & Medicine, 41, 1447–1462.CrossRef

Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2005). Quality of life in older people: A structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1651–1668.PubMedCrossRef

Garratt, A. M., Ruta, D. A., Abdalla, M. I., Buckingham, J. K., & Russell, I. T. (1993). The Sf-36 health survey questionnaire – An outcome measure suitable for routine use within the Nhs. British Medical Journal, 306, 1440–1444.PubMed

Ruta, D., Coutts, A., Abdalla, M., Masson, J., Russell, E., & Brunt, P., et al. (1995). Feasibility of monitoring patient based health outcomes in a routine hospital setting. Quality in Health Care, 4, 161–165.PubMed

Bendtsen, P., Leijon, M., Sofie Sommer, A., & Kristenson, M. (2003). Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a routine hospital setting: Feasibility and perceived value. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 5 Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/5.

Vallance-Owen, A., Cubbin, S., Warren, V., & Matthews, B. (2004). Outcome monitoring to facilitate clinical governance; experience from a national programme in the independent sector. Journal of Public Health, 26, 187–192.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Greenhalgh, J., Long, A. F., & Flynn, R. (2005). The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: Lack of impact or lack of theory? Social Science & Medicine, 60, 833–843.CrossRef

11.

Neudert, C., Wasner, M., & Borasio, G. D. (2001). Patients’ assessment of quality of life instruments: A randomised study of SIP, SF-36 and SEIQoL-DW in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 191, 103–109.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Moore, F., Wolfson, C., Alexandrov, L., & Lapierre, Y. (2004). Do general and multiple sclerosis specific quality of life instruments differ? Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 31, 64–71.PubMed

13.

Hickey, A., Barker, M., McGee, H., & O’Boyle, C. (2005). Measuring health-related quality of life in older patient populations – A review of current approaches. Pharmacoeconomics, 23, 971–993.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Dunderdale, K., Thompson, D. R., Miles, J. N. V., Beer, S. F., & Furze, G. (2005). Quality-of-life measurement in chronic heart failure: Do we take account of the patient perspective? European Journal of Heart Failure, 7, 572–582.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

16.

Kim, M. Y., Dahlberg, A., & Hagell, P. (2006). Respondent burden and patient-perceived validity of the PDQ-39. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 113, 132–137.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Coons, S. J., Rao, S., Keininger, D. L., & Hays, R. D. (2000). A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics, 17, 13–35.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Chia, E. M., Chia, E. M., Rochtchina, E., Wang, J. J., & Mitchell, P. (2006). Utility and validity of the self-administered SF-36: Findings from an older population. Annals Academy of Medicine Singapore, 35, 461–467.

20.

Mallinson, S. (1998). The Short-Form 36 and older people: Some problems encountered when using postal administration. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 52, 324–328.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Hayes, V., Morris, J., Wolfe, C., & Morgan, M. (1995). The Sf-36 health survey questionnaire – Is it suitable for use with older adults. Age and Ageing, 24, 120–125.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Castle, N. G., & Engberg, J. (2004). Response formats and satisfaction surveys for elders. Gerontologist, 44, 358–367.PubMed

23.

Draisma, S. D., & Dijkstra, W. (2004). Response latency and (para)linguistic expressions as indicators of response error. In: S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 131–147). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.CrossRef

Titel: Respondent satisfaction regarding SF-36 and EQ-5D, and patients’ perspectives concerning health outcome assessment within routine health care
verfasst von: Evalill Nilsson
Marika Wenemark
Preben Bendtsen
Margareta Kristenson
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2007
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 10/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9263-8

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Respondent satisfaction regarding SF-36 and EQ-5D, and patients’ perspectives concerning health outcome assessment within routine health care

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2007

The water exercise improves health-related quality of life of frail elderly people at day service facility

Response shift due to diagnosis and primary treatment of localized prostate cancer: a then-test and a vignette study

Cluster analysis: a useful technique to identify elderly cardiac patients at risk for poor quality of life

Chronical illness and maternity: life conditions, quality of life and coping in women with multiple sclerosis

A randomized validation study comparing embedded versus extracted FACT Head and Neck Symptom Index scores

Marker states and a health state prompt provide modest improvements in the reliability and validity of the standard gamble and rating scale in prostate cancer patients