Measurement of Outcomes of General Practice: Comparison of Three Health Status Measures

Hall, Jane; Hall, Nellie; Fisher, E.; Killer, Douglas

doi:10.1093/fampra/4.2.117

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Criterion validity has been established by Bergner and colleagues, 253 using the ADL index 62 with a correlation of r 2 = 0.41, and Hall and colleagues, 257 using the RAND Mental Health Index (r 2 = 0.10-0.29). Bergner and colleagues also established construct (discriminant) validity.…”

Section: Measurement Properties Outside Critical Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome measures for adult critical care: a systematic review.

Ja¹,

Na²,

Jenkinson³

et al. 2000

Health Technology Assessment

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

et al. Outcome measures for adult critical care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(24). Health Technology Assessment is indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica/ EMBASE. Copies of the Executive Summaries are available from the NCCHTA website (see overleaf). NHS R&D HTA Programme T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Acute Sector Panel and funded as project number 95/55/03. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. Criteria for inclusion in the HTA monograph series Reports are published in the HTA monograph series if (1) they have resulted from work either prioritised by the Standing Group on Health Technology, or otherwise commissioned for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors.

show abstract

Section: Measurement Properties Outside Critical Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome measures for adult critical care: a systematic review.

Ja¹,

Na²,

Jenkinson³

et al. 2000

Health Technology Assessment

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The SIP takes longer to complete, and both have been demonstrated to be less sensitive to lower levels of morbidity than the SF36. 5,11 The NHP also appears less sensitive than the SF36 on the majority of sub-scales of physical and emotional health. 5,12 The SF36 is now frequently recommended as the generic core in disease specific batteries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The SIP takes longer to complete, and both have been demonstrated to be less sensitive to lower levels of morbidity than the SF36. 5,11 The NHP also appears less sensitive than the SF36 on the The SF36 is a 36-item questionnaire that consists of eight health concepts or scales. Each scale is made up of a number of distinct questionnaire items in the SF36.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of the general health status questionnaire SF36 to patients with gastrointestinal dysfunction: initial validation and validation as a measure of change

Bensoussan

Chang

Menzies

et al. 2001

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective : To determine whether the Short Form (SF36) Health Status Survey is a valid measure of health status and health change for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods : The SF36 was self‐administered by 116 patients with IBS at the commencement and end of a controlled clinical trial. Patients were recruited through two Sydney teaching hospitals and through private gastroenterologists during 1997 and treated with Chinese herbal medicine. Results : The SF36 health concepts demonstrated internal consistency, construct validity and concurrent validity when applied to patients with significant bowel dysfunction. Patient scores on two health scales of the SF36 (bodily pain, general health) correlated significantly with the bowel symptom scores recorded by patients and gastroenterologists at the beginning and end of the trial period. Actively treated patients significantly improved their scores in four out of eight of the health scales of the SF36 and reported overall improvement compared with inactively treated patients. Conclusions : The SF36 is a valid measure of general health status in IBS patients, is sensitive to the presence of IBS, and is adequately sensitive to gastrointestinal change in IBS patients. Implications : While the SF36 general health measure is used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and widely overseas, until recently no data have been available on the sensitivity of the SF36 to gastrointestinal dysfunction or numerous other disorders. The SF36 is not only sensitive to the presence of IBS, it also provides a useful adjunct to current methods of evaluating treatment outcomes for IBS, and potentially other disorders.

show abstract

“…However, as a generic measure pertaining to the general population, small changes in a patient's health status following treatment may have been missed. Other commonly used questionnaires include the Sickness Impact Profile and the Nottingham Health Profile [5 , 6]. The SF‐36 has been used in a range of chronic disorders including functional digestive disorders and postoperative functioning [4,7–9].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%