Generic health status measures are unsuitable for measuring health status in severely disabled people

Clinical Rehabilitation

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 219-228

  Kersten, Paula ^a   Mullee, Mark A ^a   Smith, Jenifer A E ^a   McLellan, Lindsay ^a   George, Steve ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CAREGIVER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISABLED PERSON; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PHYSICAL CAPACITY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REHABILITATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REGISTRIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0033013164     PISSN: 02692155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/026921599667206154     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps: a manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1980.
2. Department of Health, Secretaries of State for Health SS, Scotland and Wales. The health of the nation. London: HMSO, 1992.
3. Lovelock R. Friends in deed: Three care attendant schemes for the younger physically disabled in Hampshire. Portsmouth: Social Services Research and Intelligence Unit, 1981.
4. Hunt S, McEwen J, McKenna S. Measuring health status. London: Croom Helm, 1986.
5. McKenna S, Hunt S, McEwen J. Weighting the seriousness of perceived health problems using Thurstone's method of paired comparisons, Int J Epidemiol 1981; 10: 93-97.
6. Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Argyle M. The Nottingham Health Profile: An analysis of its sensitivity in differentiating illness groups. Social Sci Med 1988; 27: 1411-14.
7. Ware JJ, Brook R, Williams K, Stewart A, Davies-Avery A. Conceptualisation and measurement of health for adults in the health insurance study. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1980.
8. Ware JJ, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey. Manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.
9. Jenkinson C, Layte R, Wright L, Coulter A. The U.K. SF-36: an analysis and interpretation manual. Oxford: Health Services Research Unit, University of Oxford, 1996.
10. Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Buckingham JK, Russell IT. The SF36 health survey questionnaire: An outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? BMJ 1993; 306: 1440-44.
11. 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.
12. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992; 305: 160-64.
13. Martin J, Meltzer H, Elliot D. OPCS surveys of disability in Great Britain. Report I. The prevalence of disability among adults. London: HMSO, 1998.
14. McPherson K, Sloan R, Hunter J, Dowell C. Validation studies of the OPCS scale - more useful than the Barthel index? Clin Rehabil 1993; 7: 105-12.
15. Norusis M, SPSS Inc. SPSS for Windows. Base system user's guide. Release 6.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc, 1993.
16. Nicholl JP. Paper presented at ISCB-10, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 1989.
17. Altman D. Some common problems in medical research. In: Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991; 403-409.
18. Hill S, Harries U, Popay J. Is the short form 36 (SF-36) suitable for routine health outcomes assessment in health care for older people? Evidence from preliminary work in community based health services in England. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1996; 50: 94-98.
19. Freeman J, Langdon D, Hobart J, Thompson A. Health-related quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis undergoing inpatient rehabilitation. J Neural Rehabil 1996; 10: 185-94.
20. McKenna S, Hunt S, Tennant A. The development of a patient completed index of distress from the Nottingham Health Profile: A new measure for use in cost-utility studies. Br J Med Econom 1993; 6: 13-24.
21. Castree B, Barnes M. Adults with physical disabilities in institutional care: do they have a choice? Int J Rehabil Res 1993; 16: 143-47.