This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kersten, P. Articles by George, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kersten, P. Articles by George, S. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Generic health status measures are unsuitable for measuring health status in severely disabled people

Health Care Research Unit, Southampton, UK

Mark A Mullee

Department of Medical Statistics and Computing, Southampton, UK

Jenifer AE Smith

Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority, Southampton, UK

Lindsay McLellan

University Rehabilitation Research Unit, Southampton, UK

Steve George

Health Care Research Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Objectives: To assess the perceived health status of disabled people. Design: Perceived health status was evaluated with the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and the Nottingham Health Profile as part of a needs assessment project exploring systematic differences in unmet needs for rehabilitation as perceived by disabled people, carers and professional staff. Disabled participants completed these health status questionnaires, as part of a face-to-face interview in participants’ own homes.

Subjects: Ninety-two disabled people aged 16–65, recruited into the study from two disability registers.

Outcome measures: The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) Disability Severity Scale, Nottingham Health Profile, SF-36.

Results: Ninety-six disabled people took part in this study. Four were later excluded because of overwhelming communication difficulties. Median OPCS category was 8 (interquartile range 6–9.75). The pain and physical mobility domains of the Nottingham Health Profile were not completed by 46/92 participants (50%) because many questions referred to activities that these people could not perform, particularly walking. The physical functioning domain of the SF-36 showed severe floor effects. It was not therefore possible to use these measures to test the effectiveness of services provided to disabled people, particularly in the areas of physical functioning and pain. Conclusions: There is a continued need to develop and test instruments that can measure the outcomes of rehabilitation in severely disabled populations.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 13, No. 3, 219-228 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/026921559901300306


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A Jacoby, A Rannard, D Buck, N Bhala, J L Newton, O F W James, and D E J Jones Development, validation, and evaluation of the PBC-40, a disease specific health related quality of life measure for primary biliary cirrhosis Gut, November 1, 2005; 54(11): 1622 - 1629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D A Gruenewald, I J Higginson, B Vivat, P Edmonds, and R E Burman Quality of life measures for the palliative care of people severely affected by multiple sclerosis: a systematic review Multiple Sclerosis, December 1, 2004; 10(6): 690 - 725. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. A. Freeman, J. C. Hobart, and A. J. Thompson Does adding MS-specific items to a generic measure (the SF-36) improve measurement? Neurology, July 10, 2001; 57(1): 68 - 74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. W M Post, J. Gerritsen, N. D M van Leusen, M. A Paping, and A. J H Prevo Adapting the Nottingham Health Profile for use in people with severe physical disabilities Clinical Rehabilitation, January 1, 2001; 15(1): 103 - 110. [Abstract] [PDF]