Should breast reduction surgery be rationed? A comparison of the health status of patients before and after treatment: Postal questionnaire survey

BMJ

Volumn 313, Issue 7055, 1996, Pages 454-457

  Klassen, Anne ^a   Jenkinson, Crispin ^a   Fitzpatrick, Ray ^a   Goodacre, Tim ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b RADCLIFFE INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST REDUCTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ESTHETIC SURGERY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MENTAL DISEASE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF ESTEEM; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

CLINICAL APPROACH/SOURCE; CONTROL GROUPS; COSMETIC SURGERY; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; FEMALES; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SURVEY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BODY IMAGE; CONTROL GROUPS; ENGLAND; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MAMMAPLASTY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PREOPERATIVE CARE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SELF CONCEPT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 0029784024     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.313.7055.454     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Department of Health. Hospital Episode Statistics. London: HMSO, 1994.
2. Soderlund N, Raftery J, Milne R, Gray A. Cost weights and casemix index construction for healthcare related groups. Winchester: National Casemix Office, NHS Executive, 1995.
3. Klein R, Redmayne S. Patterns of priorities. Birmingham: National Association of Hospitals and Trusts, 1992. (Research paper No 7.)
4. Bowling A, Jacobson B, Southgate L. Explorations in consultations of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district. Soc Sci Med 1993; 37: 851–857.
5. Cole RP, Shakespeare V, Shakespeare P, Hobby JA. Measuring outcome in low-priority plastic surgery patients using Quality of Life indices. Br J Plast Surg 1994; 47: 117–121.
6. Jenkinson C, Wright L, Coulter A. Quality of life measurement in health care. A review of measures and population norms for the UK SF-36. Oxford: Health Services Research Unit, 1993.
7. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L. Short form 36 (SF 36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ 1993; 306: 1437–40.
8. Goldberg DP, Hillier VF. A scaled version of the general health questionnaire. Psych Med 1979; 9: 139–145.
9. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965.
10. Wright L, Harwood D, Coulter A. Health and lifestyles in the Oxford Region. Oxford: Health Services Research Unit, 1992.
11. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting change in health status. Med Care 1989; 27 (suppl): S178–S189.
12. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
13. House of Commons Health Committee. Priority setting in the NHS: purchasing. First report sessions 1994-5. London: HMSO, 1995. (HC 134-1.)
14. Deyo R, Patrick D. The significance of treatment effects: the clinical perspective. Med Care 1995; 33: AS286–AS291.
15. Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Buckingham JK, Russell IT. The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use in the NHS? BMJ 1993; 306: 1440–4.
16. Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, Mowat A, Mowat A. Importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures. Quality in Health Care 1992; 1: 89–93.
17. Bardsley M, Venables C, Watson J. Evidence for validity of a health status measure in assessing short term outcomes of cholecystectomy. Quality in Health Care 1992; 1: 10–14.
18. Jenkinson C, Lawrence K, McWhinnie D, Gordon J. Sensitivity to change of health status measures in a randomised controlled trial: comparison of the COOP Charts and the SF-36. Quality of Life Research 1995; 4: 47–52.
19. Ellwood PM. The Shattuck lecture. Outcome management: a technology of patient experience. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1549–56.