Comparison of the SF-36 health survey questionnaire with the Nottingham health profile in long-term survivors of a myocardial infarction

Abstract

At least in myocardial infarction survivors, the SF-36 appears a more sensitive tool and may have benefits for assessing health-related quality of life in this patient group.

Which instrument is more suitable to assess health-related quality of life: Nottingham Health Profile or Short-Form-36?

“…As reported previously [11,12,14,[17][18][19], floor/ceiling effects in the SF-36 were found in very few subscales. When these effects did occur, they were not as pronounced as those for the NHP.…”

“…Subsequently this problem was referred to in many articles that used both instruments (in some of these publications the instruments were also compared with other instruments) in different patient groups: e. g., in the rehabilitation of patients with physical impairment [17], patients who had suffered accidents at work [18], patients who had suffered myocardial infarction [19], patients with venous ulcers [11], patients who had undergone heart surgery [14], patients with reduced growth hormones [12] and in general surveys [20]. The only study that explicitly found no difference in respect of floor effects between the two questionnaires [21] was marked by a very special characteristic: the random sample of the study comprised a normative population of elderly individuals (more than 65 years of age).…”

Health-related quality of life deficits associated with diabetes and comorbidities in a Canadian National Population Health Survey

“…Comorbid heart disease or stroke was associated with relatively large deficits in ambulation, while comorbid arthritis or heart disease was associated with significant pain. While the type of heart disease was not specified in the NPHS, ischemic heart disease, angina, and congestive heart failure are all associated with pain [39][40][41]. The amount of pain reported in the diabetes and heart disease group far exceeded that associated with either condition alone.…”

Quality of Life in Medically Ill Persons with Comorbid Mental Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Hence, multiple dependent effect sizes were summarized according to the method proposed by Rosenthal and Rubin [23], which uses the intercorrelations between multiple dependent outcomes to compute a more precise estimate of a pooled effect size for multiple dependent variables. Intercorrelations for QoL instruments were derived from published literature [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. If no such intercorrelations could be derived from the literature, the mean of the dependent effect sizes was computed.…”