{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

comparaison SF36 NHP - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Bio Med Central Page 1 of 11 (page number not for citation purposes) Health and Quality of Life Outcomes Open Access Research A comparison of the Nottingham Health Profile and Short Form 36 Health Survey in patients with chronic lower limb ischaemia in a longitudinal perspective Christine Wann-Hansson* 1 , Ingalill Rahm Hallberg 1,2 , Bo Risberg 3 and Rosemarie Klevsgård 1 Address: 1 Department of Nursing Science Lund University, Sweden, 2 The Vårdal Institute, The Swedish Institute for Health Sciences, Sweden and 3 Department of Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden Email: Christine Wann-Hansson* - [email protected]; Ingalill Rahm Hallberg - [email protected]; Bo Risberg - [email protected]; Rosemarie Klevsgård - [email protected] * Corresponding author Lower limb ischaemiaNottingham Health ProfileReliabilityResponsivenessShort Form 36Validity Abstract Background: Different generic quality of life instruments such as the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) have revealed conflicting results in patients with chronic lower limb ischaemia in psychometric attributes in short-term evaluations. The aim of this study was to compare the NHP and the SF-36 regarding internal consistency reliability, validity, responsiveness and suitability as outcome measures in patients with lower limb ischaemia in a longitudinal perspective. Methods: 48 patients with intermittent claudication and 42 with critical ischaemia were included. Assessment was made before and one year after revascularization using comparable domains of the NHP and the SF-36 questionnaires. Results: The SF-36 was less skewed and more homogeneous than the NHP. There was an average convergent validity in three of the five comparable domains one year postoperatively. The SF-36 showed a higher internal consistency except for social functioning one-year postoperatively and was more responsive in detecting changes over time in patients with intermittent claudication. The NHP was more sensitive in discriminating among levels of ischaemia regarding pain and more able to detect changes in the critical ischaemia group. Conclusion: Both SF-36 and NHP have acceptable degrees of reliability for group-level comparisons, convergent and construct validity one year postoperatively. Nevertheless, the SF-36 has superior psychometric properties and was more suitable in patients with intermittent claudication. The NHP however, discriminated better among severity of ischaemia and was more responsive in patients with critical ischaemia. Published: 17 February 2004 Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2004, 2 :9 Received: 14 October 2003 Accepted: 17 February 2004 This article is available from: http://www.hqlo.com/content/2/1/9 © 2004 Wann-Hansson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}