Top

Published in:

01-01-2006 | Review

Health related quality of life outcome instruments

Author: Gunnar Németh

Published in: European Spine Journal | Special Issue 1/2006

Abstract

Health is the most significant part of quality of life. Generally, quality of life outcome instruments used in healthcare confine their attention to health related areas, assessing health related quality of life. The present study aims to describe some commonly used health profile instruments such as the generic measures SF-36, Nottingham Health Profile and Sickness Impact Profile; and the preference-based measures EuroQol and SF-6D. The latter preference-based instruments are increasingly used in outcome studies and obtained data might be used for calculating quality-adjusted life-years.

An SF-36 licence can be obtained at http://www.sf-36.org (accessed 2 October 2005) and a reference kit can be ordered at http://www.qualitymetric.com/products/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=468&categoryid=1 (accessed 2 October 2005).

SF-36 is currently available in Afrikaans, Armenian, Bulgarian, Chinese for Hong Kong, Chinese for Singapore, Chinese for Taiwan, Chinese for the USA, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Dutch for Belgium, English for Australia, English for Canada, English for Hong Kong, English for Malaysia, English for New Zealand, English for the Philippines, English for Singapore, English for South Africa, English for Taiwan, English for the UK, Estonian, Finnish, French, French for Belgium, French for Canada, French for Switzerland, German, German for Austria, German for Switzerland, Greek, Gujarati, Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Iranian, Italian, Italian for Switzerland, Japanese, Japanese for the USA, Kiswahili, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Malay for Malaysia, Malay for Singapore, Malayalam, Marathi, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Portuguese for Brazil, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Spanish for Argentina, Spanish for Chile, Spanish for Colombia, Spanish for Costa Rica, Spanish for Guatemala, Spanish for Honduras, Spanish for Mexico, Spanish for Peru, Spanish for Puerto Rico, Spanish for the USA, Spanish for Uruguay, Spanish for Venezuela, Swedish, Tagalog, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian and Vietnamese for the USA. Source: http://www.proqolid.org/, accessed 2 October 2005.

SF-12 is currently available in Afrikaans, Bulgarian, Chinese for Hong Kong, Chinese for Singapore, Chinese for Taiwan, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Dutch for Belgium, English for Australia, English for Canada, English for Hong Kong, English for India, English for New Zealand, English for South Africa, English for Taiwan, English for the UK, Estonian, Finnish, French, French for Belgium, French for Canada, French for Switzerland, German, German for Austria, German for Switzerland, Greek, Gujarati, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Italian for Switzerland, Japanese, Kannada, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Malay for Malaysia, Malay for Singapore, Malayalam, Marathi, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Portuguese for Brazil, Romanian, Russian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Spanish for Argentina, Spanish for Chile, Spanish for Mexico, Spanish for Puerto Rico, Spanish for the USA, Swedish, Tagalog, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Xhosa and Zulu. Source: http://www.proqolid.org/, accessed 2 October 2005.

http://www.sf-36.org/tools/sf12.shtml, accessed 2 October 2005.

The instrument can be ordered from Medical Outcomes Trust, a not for profit organisation, at http://www.outcomes-trust.org/instruments/SIPpack.htm (accessed 25 September 2005). The package includes a copy of the instrument including royalty-free permission to use and reproduce and user manual.

Sickness Impact Profile is currently available in Arabic, Chinese for Hong-Kong, Danish, Dutch, Dutch for Belgium, English for Mexico, English for the UK, Finnish, French, French for Belgium, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Spanish for Mexico, Spanish for the USA (Chicano Spanish for the Southwest USA), Swedish, Tamil and Thai. Source: http://www.proqolid.org/, accessed 2 October 2005.

Address for contact: Dr. Stephen McKenna, Director of Research, Galen Research, Enterprise House, Manchester Science Park, Lloyd Street North, Manchester M15 6SE, UK. Tel.: +44-161-2264446; Fax: +44-161-2264478; E-mail: smckenna@galen-research.com. Source: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.7s110.x, accessed 4 October 2005.

Nottingham Health Profile is currently available in Arabic, Danish, Dutch, English for the USA, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese for Brazil, Spanish and Swedish. Source: http://www.proqolid.org/, accessed 2 October 2005.

http://www.euroqol.org, accessed 2 October 2005.

EQ-5D is currently available in Afrikaans (for South Africa), Bulgarian, Catalan, Chinese (for China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan), Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch (for Belgium, the Netherlands), English (for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK (includes Ireland), Singapore, South Africa, USA), Estonian, Finnish, French (for Belgium, France, Canada, Switzerland), German (for Germany, Austria, Switzerland), Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Latvian, Lithuanian, Malay (for Malaysia), Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese (for Brazil, Portugal), Romanian, Russian (for Israel, Russia), Slovakian, Spanish (for Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Spain, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela), Slovenian, Swedish, Thai and Turkish. Source: http://www.euroqol.org/web/users/language_a.php/, accessed 2 October 2005.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/projects/sf-6d.html (accessed 14 October 2005). The SF-6D is copyrighted and is available on a license basis. A license is available free of charge for all non-commercial applications including work funded by research councils, Government agencies and charities. For commercial applications there will be a per study license (e.g. clinical trial), though an open license for a fixed period is available. The SF-6D is being used in software available from Quality Metric (www.qualitymetric.com).

http://www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.htm, accessed 12 October 2005.

Andresen EM, Fouts BS, Romeis JC, Brownson CA (1999) Performance of health-related quality-of-life instruments in a spinal cord injured population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80:877–884PubMedCrossRef

Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS (1981) The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of health status measure. Med Care 19:787–805PubMedCrossRef

Brazier JE, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP et al (1996) Using the SF-36 and EuroQol on an elderly population. Qual Life Res 5:195–204PubMedCrossRef

Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K (1998) Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1115–1128PubMedCrossRef

Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002) The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21:271–292PubMedCrossRef

Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J (2004) A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 13:873–884PubMedCrossRef

Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37:53–72PubMedCrossRef

Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F (eds) (2003) The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Evidence from the EuroQol BIOMED Research Programme. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands

Burchiel KJ, Anderson VC, Wilson BJ, Denison DB, Olson KA, Shatin D, Young RF, North RB (1995) Prognostic factors of spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain. Neurosurgery 36:1101–1111PubMedCrossRef

10.

Burstrom B, Fredlund P (2001) Self rated health: is it as good a predictor of subsequent mortality among adults in lower as well as in higher social classes? J Epidemiol Community Health 55:836–840PubMedCrossRef

11.

Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2001a) Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 10:621–635CrossRef

12.

Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2001b) Health-related quality of life by disease and socio-economic group in the general population in Sweden. Health Policy 55:51–69CrossRef

13.

Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2003) The value of the change in health in Sweden 1980/81 to 1996/97. Health Econ 12:637–654PubMedCrossRef

14.

Burstrom K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F (2005) A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy, Oct 6, Epub ahead of print, PMID: 16214258

15.

Chung YL, Mitchell HL, Houssien DA, Al-Mahrouki H, Carr AJ, Scott DL (2001) A comparative study of outcome in myositis and other musculoskeletal disorders assessed using the Nottingham Health Profile. Clin Exp Rheumatol 19:447–450PubMed

16.

Cockerill W, Lunt M, Silman AJ, Cooper C, Lips P, Bhalla AK, Cannata JB, Eastell R, Felsenberg D, Gennari C, Johnell O, Kanis JA, Kiss C, Masaryk P, Naves M, Poor G, Raspe H, Reid DM, Reeve J, Stepan J, Todd C, Woolf AD, O’Neill TW (2004) Health-related quality of life and radiographic vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 15:113–119PubMedCrossRef

17.

Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD (2000) A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 17:13–35PubMedCrossRef

18.

Cortet B, Houvenagel E, Puisieux F, Roches E, Garnier P, Delcambre B (1999a) Spinal curvatures and quality of life in women with vertebral fractures secondary to osteoporosis. Spine 24:1921–1925CrossRef

19.

Cortet B, Cotten A, Boutry N, Flipo RM, Duquesnoy B, Chastanet P, Delcambre B (1999b) Percutaneous vertebroplasty in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: an open prospective study. J Rheumatol 26:2222–2228

20.

Dolan P (1996) Modelling valuations for health states: the effect of duration. Health Policy 38:189–203PubMedCrossRef

21.

Dolan PD (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35:1095–1108PubMedCrossRef

22.

Dorman P, Slattery J, Farrell B, Dennis M, Sandercock P (1998) Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke 29:63–68

23.

Dursun N, Dursun E, Yalcin S (2001) Comparison of alendronate, calcitonin and calcium treatments in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Int J Clin Pract 55:505–509PubMed

24.

Ettinger B, Block JE, Smith R, Cummings SR, Harris ST, Genant HK (1988) An examination of the association between vertebral deformities, physical disabilities and psychosocial problems. Maturitas 10:283–296PubMedCrossRef

25.

Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R (2002) Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures [see comment]. Br Med J 324:1417CrossRef

26.

Gijsen R, Hoeymans N, Schellevis FG, Ruwaard D, Satariano WA, van den Bos GA (2001) Causes and consequences of comorbidity: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 54:661–674PubMedCrossRef

27.

Gilbert FJ, Grant AM, Gillan MG, Vale LD, Campbell MK, Scott NW, Knight DJ, Wardlaw D (2004a) Low back pain: influence of early MR imaging or CT on treatment and outcome—multicenter randomized trial. Radiology 231:343–351CrossRef

28.

Gilbert FJ, Grant AM, Gillan MG, Vale L, Scott NW, Campbell MK, Wardlaw D, Knight D, McIntosh E, Porter RW (2004b) Does early imaging influence management and improve outcome in patients with low back pain? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess 8(iii):1–131

29.

Goulet JA, Senunas LE, DeSilva GL, Greenfield M (1997) Autogenous iliac crest bone graft: complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 339:76–81

30.

Groll DL, To T, Bombardier C, Wright JG (2005) The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 58:595–602PubMedCrossRef

31.

Gyrd-Hansen D (2005) Willingness to pay for a QALY: theoretical and methodological issues. Pharmacoeconomics 23:423–432PubMedCrossRef

32.

Hammill JM, Cook TM, Rosecrance JC (1996) Effectiveness of a physical therapy regimen in the treatment of tension-type headache. Headache 36:149–153PubMedCrossRef

33.

Hidding A, Van der Linden S, Boers M, Gielen X, De Witte L, Kester A, Dijkmans B, Moolenburgh D (1993) Is group physical therapy superior to individualized therapy in ankylosing spondylitis? A randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res 6:117–125PubMedCrossRef

34.

Hidding A, Van der Linden S, Gielen X, De Witte L, Dijkmans B, Moolenburgh D (1994) Continuation of group physical therapy is necessary in ankylosing spondylitis. Results of a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res 7:90–96PubMedCrossRef

35.

Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J et al (1981) The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 15:221–229

36.

Hurst NP, Jobanputra P, Hunter M, Lambert M, Lochhead A, Brown H (1994) Validity of Euroqol—a generic health status instrument—in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Economic and Health Outcomes Research Group. Br J Rheumatol 33:655–662PubMedCrossRef

37.

Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, Hunter M, Stubbings A (1997) Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol 36:551–559PubMedCrossRef

38.

Jansson KA, Németh G, Granath F, Jonsson B, Blomqvist P (2005) Health-related quality of life in patients before and after surgery for a herniated lumbar disc. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:959–964PubMedCrossRef

39.

Johnson JA, Coons SJ (1998) Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 in an adult US sample. Qual Life Res 7:155–166PubMedCrossRef

40.

Karppinen J, Ohinmaa A, Malmivaara A, Kurunlahti M, Kyllonen E, Pienimaki T, Nieminen P, Tervonen O, Vanharanta H (2001) Cost effectiveness of periradicular infiltration for sciatica: subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Spine 26:2587–2595PubMedCrossRef

41.

Kendrick D, Fielding K, Bentley E, Kerslake R, Miller P, Pringle M (2001) Radiography of the lumbar spine in primary care patients with low back pain: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 322(7283):400–405CrossRef

42.

Legroux-Gerot I, Lormeau C, Boutry N, Cotten A, Duquesnoy B, Cortet B (2004) Long-term follow-up of vertebral osteoporotic fractures treated by percutaneous vertebroplasty. Clin Rheumatol 23:310–317PubMedCrossRef

43.

Levy HI, Hanscom B, Boden SD (2002) Three-question depression screener used for lumbar disc herniations and spinal stenosis [see comment]. Spine 27:1232–1237PubMedCrossRef

44.

Lofgren H, Johansen F, Skogar O, Levander B (2003) Reduced pain after surgery for cervical disc protrusion/stenosis: a 2 year clinical follow-up. Disabil Rehabil 25:1033–1043PubMedCrossRef

45.

Lurie J (2000) A review of generic health status measures in patients with low back pain. Spine 25:3125–3129PubMedCrossRef

46.

McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Hilibrand AS, Tosteson AN (2005) Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res 14:1321–1332PubMedCrossRef

47.

McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE (1993) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 31:247–263PubMedCrossRef

48.

McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD (1994) The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 32:40–66PubMedCrossRef

49.

Meyers AR, Andresen EM (2000) Enabling our instruments: accommodation, universal design, and access to participation in research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81:S5–S9PubMedCrossRef

50.

O’Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, Severens JL, Dorian P, Brazier J (2003) A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ 12:975–981PubMedCrossRef

51.

Ohnmeiss DD, Rashbaum RF, Bogdanffy GM, Sonntag VKH, Hurlbert RJ (1996) Prospective outcome evaluation of spinal cord stimulation in patients with intractable leg pain. Spine 21:1344–1351PubMedCrossRef

52.

Olson SL, O’Connor DP, Birmingham G, Broman P, Herrera L (2000) Tender point sensitivity, range of motion, and perceived disability in subjects with neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 30:13–20PubMed

53.

Papaioannou A, Adachi JD, Winegard K, Ferko N, Parkinson W, Cook RJ, Webber C, McCartney N (2003) Efficacy of home-based exercise for improving quality of life among elderly women with symptomatic osteoporosis-related vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 14:677–682PubMedCrossRef

54.

Persson LCG, Carlsson CA, Carlsson JY, Sherk HH (1997) Long-lasting cervical radicular pain managed with surgery, physiotherapy, or a cervical collar: a prospective, randomized study. Spine 22:751–758PubMedCrossRef

55.

Petrou S, Hockley C (2005) An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ 14:1169–1189PubMedCrossRef

56.

Rainville J, Hartigan C, Jouve C, Martinez E (2004) The influence of intense exercise-based physical therapy program on back pain anticipated before and induced by physical activities. Spine J 4:176–183PubMedCrossRef

57.

Resnik L, Dobrzykowski E (2003) Guide to outcomes measurement for patients with low back pain syndromes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 33:307–316; discussion 317–318PubMed

58.

Resnik L, Dobrykowski E (2005) Outcomes measurement for patients with low back pain. Orthop Nurs 24:14–24PubMedCrossRef

59.

Rivero-Arias O, Campbell H, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J (2005) Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 330:1239CrossRef

60.

Saraph V, Lerch C, Walochnik N, Bach CM, Krismer M, Wimmer C (2004) Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 13:425–431PubMedCrossRef

61.

van Schoor NM, Smit JH, Twisk JW, Lips P (2005) Impact of vertebral deformities, osteoarthritis, and other chronic diseases on quality of life: a population-based study. Osteoporos Int 16:749–756PubMedCrossRef

62.

Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP (2005) Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost–utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J April 21, Epub ahead of print, PMID: 15843969

63.

Spincemaille GH, Beersen N, Dekkers MA, Theuvenet PJ (2004) Neuropathic limb pain and spinal cord stimulation: results of the Dutch prospective study. Neuromodulation 7:184–192CrossRef

64.

Stromqvist B (2002) Evidence-based lumbar spine surgery. The role of national registration. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 73:34–39

65.

Stromqvist B, Jonsson B, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Larsson BE, Lind B (2001) The Swedish National Register for lumbar spine surgery: Swedish Society for Spinal Surgery. Acta Orthop Scand 72:99–106PubMedCrossRef

66.

Stucki G, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN (1994) Contribution of neuromuscular impairment to physical functional status in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. J Rheumatol 21:1338–1343PubMed

67.

The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 16:199–208CrossRef

68.

Thevenon A, Bonan I, Catanzariti JF, Duquesnoy B (1994) Quality of life and vertebral osteoporosis [French]. Ann Readapt Med Phys 37:89–94

69.

Tosteson AN (2000) Preference-based health outcome measures in low back pain. Spine 25:3161–3166PubMedCrossRef

70.

Walters SJ, Brazier JE (2003) What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:4PubMedCrossRef

71.

Walters SJ, Brazier JE (2005) Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 14:1523–1532PubMedCrossRef

72.

Ware JE Jr (2000) SF-36 health survey update. Spine 25:3130–3139PubMedCrossRef

73.

Ware JE Jr (2001) Erratum: SF-36 health survey update Spine (2000) 25 (3130–3139)). 26:2062

74.

Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483PubMedCrossRef

75.

Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233PubMedCrossRef

76.

Yoh K, Tanaka K, Ishikawa A, Ishibashi T, Uchino Y, Sato Y, Tobinaga M, Hasegawa N, Kamae S, Yoshizawa M (2005) Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in Japanese osteoporotic patients and its improvement by elcatonin treatment. J Bone Miner Metab 23:167–173PubMedCrossRef

77.

Zahavi A, Geertzen JHB, Middel B, Staal M, Rietman JS (2004) Long term effect (more than five years) of intrathecal baclofen on impairment, disability, and quality of life in patients with severe spasticity of spinal origin. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 75:1553–1557PubMedCrossRef

78.

Zanoli G (2005) Outcome assessment in lumbar spine surgery. Acta Orthop Suppl 76:5–47PubMed

79.

Zanoli G, Stromqvist B, Padua R, Romanini E (2000) Lessons learned searching for a HRQoL instrument to assess the results of treatment in persons with lumbar disorders. Spine 25:3178–3185PubMedCrossRef

Title: Health related quality of life outcome instruments
Author: Gunnar Németh
Publication date: 01-01-2006
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue Special Issue 1/2006
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1046-8

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Health related quality of life outcome instruments

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2006

The rationale for a spine registry

Pain assessment

Economic evaluations: a new avenue of outcome assessment in spinal disorders

Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review

Outcome assessment and documentation: a friend or foe?

Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment