Cargando…

Norwegian reference values for the Short-Form Health Survey 36: development over time

PURPOSE: Reference values for patient-reported outcome measures are useful for interpretation of results from clinical trials. The study aims were to collect Norwegian SF-36 reference values and compare with data from 1996 to 2002. METHODS: In 2015, SF-36 was sent by mail to a representative sample...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jacobsen, Ellisiv L., Bye, Asta, Aass, Nina, Fosså, Sophie D., Grotmol, Kjersti S., Kaasa, Stein, Loge, Jon Håvard, Moum, Torbjørn, Hjermstad, Marianne J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5891566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28808829
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1684-4
_version_ 1783313020563226624
author Jacobsen, Ellisiv L.
Bye, Asta
Aass, Nina
Fosså, Sophie D.
Grotmol, Kjersti S.
Kaasa, Stein
Loge, Jon Håvard
Moum, Torbjørn
Hjermstad, Marianne J.
author_facet Jacobsen, Ellisiv L.
Bye, Asta
Aass, Nina
Fosså, Sophie D.
Grotmol, Kjersti S.
Kaasa, Stein
Loge, Jon Håvard
Moum, Torbjørn
Hjermstad, Marianne J.
author_sort Jacobsen, Ellisiv L.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Reference values for patient-reported outcome measures are useful for interpretation of results from clinical trials. The study aims were to collect Norwegian SF-36 reference values and compare with data from 1996 to 2002. METHODS: In 2015, SF-36 was sent by mail to a representative sample of the population (N = 6165). Time trends and associations between background variables and SF-36 scale scores were compared by linear regression models. RESULTS: The 2015 response rate was 36% (N = 2118) versus 67% (N = 2323) in 1996 and 56% (N = 5241) in 2002. Only 5% of the youngest (18–29 years) and 27% of the oldest (>70 years) responded in 2015. Age and educational level were significantly higher in 2015 relative to 1996/2002 (p < .001). The oldest age group in 2015 reported better scores on five of eight scales (p < 0.01), the exceptions being bodily pain, vitality, and mental health compared to 1996/2002 (NS). Overall, the SF-36 scores were relatively stable across surveys, controlled for background variables. In general, the most pronounced changes in 2015 were better scores on the role limitations emotional scale (7.4 points, p < .001) and lower scores on the bodily pain scale (4.6 points, p < .001) than in the 1996/2002 survey. CONCLUSIONS: The low response rate in 2015 suggests that the results, especially among the youngest, should be interpreted with caution. The high response rate among the oldest indicates good representativity for those >70 years. Despite societal changes in Norway the past two decades, HRQoL has remained relatively stable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5891566
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58915662018-04-17 Norwegian reference values for the Short-Form Health Survey 36: development over time Jacobsen, Ellisiv L. Bye, Asta Aass, Nina Fosså, Sophie D. Grotmol, Kjersti S. Kaasa, Stein Loge, Jon Håvard Moum, Torbjørn Hjermstad, Marianne J. Qual Life Res Article PURPOSE: Reference values for patient-reported outcome measures are useful for interpretation of results from clinical trials. The study aims were to collect Norwegian SF-36 reference values and compare with data from 1996 to 2002. METHODS: In 2015, SF-36 was sent by mail to a representative sample of the population (N = 6165). Time trends and associations between background variables and SF-36 scale scores were compared by linear regression models. RESULTS: The 2015 response rate was 36% (N = 2118) versus 67% (N = 2323) in 1996 and 56% (N = 5241) in 2002. Only 5% of the youngest (18–29 years) and 27% of the oldest (>70 years) responded in 2015. Age and educational level were significantly higher in 2015 relative to 1996/2002 (p < .001). The oldest age group in 2015 reported better scores on five of eight scales (p < 0.01), the exceptions being bodily pain, vitality, and mental health compared to 1996/2002 (NS). Overall, the SF-36 scores were relatively stable across surveys, controlled for background variables. In general, the most pronounced changes in 2015 were better scores on the role limitations emotional scale (7.4 points, p < .001) and lower scores on the bodily pain scale (4.6 points, p < .001) than in the 1996/2002 survey. CONCLUSIONS: The low response rate in 2015 suggests that the results, especially among the youngest, should be interpreted with caution. The high response rate among the oldest indicates good representativity for those >70 years. Despite societal changes in Norway the past two decades, HRQoL has remained relatively stable. Springer International Publishing 2017-08-14 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5891566/ /pubmed/28808829 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1684-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Jacobsen, Ellisiv L.
Bye, Asta
Aass, Nina
Fosså, Sophie D.
Grotmol, Kjersti S.
Kaasa, Stein
Loge, Jon Håvard
Moum, Torbjørn
Hjermstad, Marianne J.
Norwegian reference values for the Short-Form Health Survey 36: development over time
title Norwegian reference values for the Short-Form Health Survey 36: development over time
title_full Norwegian reference values for the Short-Form Health Survey 36: development over time
title_fullStr Norwegian reference values for the Short-Form Health Survey 36: development over time
title_full_unstemmed Norwegian reference values for the Short-Form Health Survey 36: development over time
title_short Norwegian reference values for the Short-Form Health Survey 36: development over time
title_sort norwegian reference values for the short-form health survey 36: development over time
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5891566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28808829
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1684-4
work_keys_str_mv AT jacobsenellisivl norwegianreferencevaluesfortheshortformhealthsurvey36developmentovertime
AT byeasta norwegianreferencevaluesfortheshortformhealthsurvey36developmentovertime
AT aassnina norwegianreferencevaluesfortheshortformhealthsurvey36developmentovertime
AT fossasophied norwegianreferencevaluesfortheshortformhealthsurvey36developmentovertime
AT grotmolkjerstis norwegianreferencevaluesfortheshortformhealthsurvey36developmentovertime
AT kaasastein norwegianreferencevaluesfortheshortformhealthsurvey36developmentovertime
AT logejonhavard norwegianreferencevaluesfortheshortformhealthsurvey36developmentovertime
AT moumtorbjørn norwegianreferencevaluesfortheshortformhealthsurvey36developmentovertime
AT hjermstadmariannej norwegianreferencevaluesfortheshortformhealthsurvey36developmentovertime