Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 285–288

Measuring quality of life with the sickness impact profile: A pilot study

  • R. G. Hulsebos
  • F. W. Beltman
  • D. dos Reis Miranda
  • J. F. A. Spangenberg


A pilot-study was done to investigate the applicability of the sickness impact profile (SIP) in ex-ICU patients. For this study 221 consecutively admitted patients were reviewed retrospectively after excluding children, deceased pateints and readmissions. SIP was assessed in these patients by either interview or questionnaire. These were divided into three groups: i) Patients interviewed at home (n=26). ii) Patients receiving the SIP-questionnaire by mail (n=93). iii) As for group ii, but after receiving a telephone invitation to participate (n=102). Highest mean SIP-score was found in group i (16.3). Groups ii and iii scored 10.2 and 7.9 respectively. Analysis of variance demonstrated overall SIP-scores of these groups to be significantly different. The response in group iii (77%) was significantly higher compared to group ii (56%). Data collection in Group i appeared to be most expensive costing $13.20 per patient, followed by group iii ($3.79) and group ii ($2.56). It is concluded that the self-administered SIP is suitable for measuring outcome in ICU-patients and is much cheaper than the direct interview technique. The 3 different approaches should be considered as independent methods of which individual results cannot be compared. The response can be improved significantly by calling the patients before sending the questionnaire.

Key words

Intensive Care Sickness impact profile Quality of life Measurement of outcome 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    McDowell I, Newell C (1987) Measuring health. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reis Miranda D, Williams A, Loirat Ph (1990) Management of intensive care: guidelines for better resource use. Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balaban DJ, Sagi PC, Goldfarb NI, Nettler S (1986) Weights for scoring the quality of well-being instrument among rheumatoid arthritics. Med Care 24:973–980Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patrick DL, Danis M, Southerland LI, Hong G (1988) Quality of life following intensive care. J Gen Intern Med 3:218–223Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Gilson BS, Morris JR (1976) The sickness impact profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int J Health Serv 6:393–415Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB Gilson BS (1981) The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 19:787–805Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luttik A, Jacobs HM, Witte de LP (1987) De sickness impact profile: Een meetinstrument, waarmee de invloed van ziekte en/of gezondheitsklachten op het dagelijks functioneren kan worden vastgesteld. UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carter WB, Bobbitt RA, Bergner M, Gilson BS (1976) Validation of an interval scaling: The sickness impact profile. Health Serv Res 11:516–528Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Pollard WE, Martin DP, Gilson BS (1976) The sickness impact profile: validation of a health status measure. Med Care 14:57–67Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pollard WE, Bobbitt RA, Bergner M, Martin DP, Gilson BS (1976) The sickness impact profile: reliability of a health status measure. Med Care 14:146–155Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. G. Hulsebos
    • 1
  • F. W. Beltman
    • 1
  • D. dos Reis Miranda
    • 1
  • J. F. A. Spangenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.University Hospital GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations