Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,141

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS?

Open access
Garratt, A M, Ruta, D A, Abdalla, M I, Buckingham, J K, Russell, I T·1993·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1440
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To assess the validity, reliability, and acceptability of the short form 36 (SF 36) health survey questionnaire (a shortened version of a battery of 149 health status questions) as a measure of patient outcome in a broad sample of patients suffering from four common clinical conditions. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire, followed up by two reminders at two week intervals. SETTING--Clinics and four training practices in north east Scotland. SUBJECTS--Over 1700 patients aged 16-86 with one of four conditions--low back pain, menorrhagia, suspected peptic ulcer, or varicose veins--and a comparison sample of 900 members of the general population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--The eight scales within the SF36 health profile. RESULTS--The response rate exceeded 75% in the patient population (1310 respondents). The SF36 satisfied rigorous psychometric criteria for validity and internal consistency. Clinical validity was shown by the distinctive profiles generated for each condition, each of which differed from that in the general population in a predictable manner. Furthermore, SF36 scores were lower in referred patients than in patients not referred and were closely related to general practitioners' perceptions of severity. CONCLUSIONS--These results provide support for the SF36 as a potential measure of patient outcome within the NHS. The SF36 seems acceptable to patients, internally consistent, and a valid measure of the health status of a wide range of patients. Before it can be used in the new health service, however, its sensitivity to changes in health status over time must also be tested.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1440

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB, O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992;305:160-4. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Wilkin D, Hallam L, Doggett M. Measures of need and outcome for primary care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
  3. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
  4. Bowling A. Measuring health: a review of quality of life measurement scales. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991.
  5. Hunt S, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J R Coll Gen Pract 1985;35:185-8.
  6. Kind P, Carr-Hill R. The Nottingham health profile: a useful tool for epidemiologists? Soc SciMed 1987;25:905-10.
  7. Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds. Measuring functioning and well being: the medical outcomes study approach. London: Duke University Press, 1992.
  8. Wright L, Harwood D, Coulter A. Health and lifestyles in the Oxford region. Oxford: Health Services Research Unit, 1992.
  9. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981;19:787-805. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, Mowat A, Mowat A. The importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures. Quality in Health Care 1992;1:89-93. · DOI
  11. Ziebland S, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C. Assessing short term outcome. Quality in Health Care 1992;1(2):141-2. (Letter.) · DOI
  12. Carr-Hill R, Morris J. Current practice in obtaining the "Q" in QALYs: a cautionary note. BMJ 1991;303:699-701. · DOI
  13. Kind P, Carr-Hlll R. The Nottingham health profile: a useful tool for epidemiologists? Soc Sci Mod 1987;2S:905-10. · DOI
  14. Ware JE, Sherboume CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Mad Care 1992;30: 473-83. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, Wells K, Rogers MH, Berry SD, at al Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: results from the medical outcomes study. AMA 1989;262:907-13. Discussion · DOI · Paper page
  16. Frater A, Costain D. Any better? Outcome measures in medical audit: patients To achieve its goals of efficiency and quality of care care about outcome-should doctors be measuring it? BM.J 1992;304: 519-20. · DOI
  17. McHomey CA, Ware JE, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JFR. The validity and relative precision of MOS shortand long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts: results from the medical outcomes study. Mod Care 1992;30(suppl):MS253-65.
  18. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB, O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, at al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BM. 1992;305: 160-4. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Jenkinson C, CoulterA, WrightL. Shortform 36 (SF 36) healthsurveyquestionnaire: normative data for adults ofworking age. BMJ 1993;306:1437-40. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Streiner GL, Norman DR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
  21. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the intemal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297-334. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Jolliffe IT. Principal component analysis. New York: Springer Verlag, 1986.
  23. Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Graber J, Rausch R, Engel J, Brook RH. A healthrelated quality of life instrument for patients evaluated for epilepsy surgery. Med Care 1992;30:299-312. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987.
  25. Garratt AM, Macdonald LM, Ruta DA, Russell IT, Buckingham JK, Krukowski ZH. Towards the measurement of outcome for patients with varicose veins. Quality in Health Care 1993;2:5-10. · DOI
  26. Ellwood PM. Outcomes management: a technology of patient experience. NEnglMed 1988;318:1549-56. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Roland MO, Coulter AM. Hospital referrals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Garratt, A. M., Ruta, D. A., Abdalla, M. I., Buckingham, J. K., & Russell, I. T.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1993-05-29
Volume
306
Issue
6890
Pages
1440-1444
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1440
OpenAlex
W1998884854
Cited by
1,141
References
4
FWCI
115.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.