Cited by 196Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

SF 36 health survey questionnaire: II. Responsiveness to changes in health status in four common clinical conditions

Open access
Garratt, A M, Ruta, D A, Abdalla, M I, Russell, I T·1994·Quality in Health Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the responsiveness of the SF 36 health survey questionnaire to changes in health status over time for four common clinical conditions. DESIGN: Postal questionnaires at baseline and after one year's follow up, with two reminders at two week intervals if necessary. SETTING: Clinics and four training general practices in Grampian region in the north east of Scotland. PATIENTS: More than 1,700 patients aged 16 to 86 years with one of four conditions: low back pain, menorrhagia, suspected peptic ulcer, and varicose veins; and a random sample of 900 members of the local general population for comparison. MAIN MEASURES: A transition question measuring change in health and the eight scales of the SF 36 health survey questionnaire; standardised response means (mean change in score for a scale divided by the standard deviation of the change in scores) used to quantify the instrument's responsiveness to changes in perceived health status, and comparison of patient scores at baseline and follow up with those of the general population. RESULTS: The response rate exceeded 75% in a patient population. Changes across the SF 36 questionnaire were associated with self reported changes in health, as measured by the transition question. The questionnaire showed significant improvements in health status for all four clinical conditions, whether in referred or non-referred patients. For patients with suspected peptic ulcer and varicose veins the SF 36 profiles at one year approximate to the general population. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide the first evidence of the responsiveness of the SF 36 questionnaire to changes in perceived health status in a patient population in the United Kingdom.

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/qshc.3.4.186

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 196

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K. Can the sickness impact profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1986; 39:429-38.
  2. Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical method in edcn.dal rerh/.i 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987.
  3. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SI-36 hlalthi urccs manunual and illetprctatiiioi guidc. Boston: Nimrrod Press, 1993.
  4. Sheldon T. Reliability of SF 36 remains uncertain. 1l3A7 1993;307:125-6.
  5. Roland MO, Coulter AM. Hospital rcfc7rals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
  6. Garratt AM, Macdonald LM, Ruta DA, Russell II, Buckingham JK, Krukowski ZH. Towards the measurement of outcome for patients ssith s aricose sells. Quality ini Health Care 1993;2:5-10.

Authors
Garratt, A. M., Ruta, D. A., Abdalla, M. I., & Russell, I. T.
Affiliations
University of Aberdeen (GB)
Venue
Quality in Health Care
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1994-12
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
186-192
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 0963-8172
  • 1475-3901
OpenAlex
W2102289626
Cited by
196
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
15.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
SF-36, health-related quality of life, responsiveness, health status change, low back pain, menorrhagia, peptic ulcer, varicose veins, general practice patients, self-reported health, standardized response mean
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Menorrhagia, Middle Aged, Peptic Ulcer, Surveys and Questionnaires, Scotland, Varicose Veins, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Low Back Pain

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