Advertisement

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 116–126 | Cite as

Reference Values for the SF-36 in Canadian Injured Workers Undergoing Rehabilitation

  • Douglas P. GrossEmail author
  • Fahad S. Algarni
  • Riikka Niemeläinen
Article

Abstract

Purpose The Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) is a widely used measure of health-related quality of life and normative reference values have been published for the general population of several countries. Since injured workers often experience pain, disability and other health challenges, we evaluated SF-36 reference values for Canadian workers’ compensation claimants undergoing rehabilitation. Methods Descriptive cross-sectional design. Data were gathered as part of a study aimed at developing a tool for selecting rehabilitation programs. Data were available on a wide variety of measures, including the SF-36. We calculated age- and sex-adjusted reference values, and stratified analyses based on type of rehabilitation, employment status and diagnostic group. Results Data were available on 5,622 claimants undergoing rehabilitation. Claimants reported significant limitations on all SF-36 scales, but were especially limited on the Role Emotional and Bodily Pain scales (~3 standard deviations below typical Canadian norms). Unemployed, middle-aged claimants undergoing chronic pain programs reported the lowest health status, but SF-36 scores varied minimally across diagnoses. Conclusions Claimant scores on the SF-36 were below population norms across all health scales and differed depending on age, employment status and type of rehabilitation. These data will be useful for assessing the health status of injured workers and evaluating the effect of rehabilitation interventions.

Keywords

Health-related quality of life Compensation Occupational injuries Outcome measurement Disability insurance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported with funds from the Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests or financial arrangements that would represent a conflict of interest for this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Hopman WM, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, Tenenhouse A, Poliquin S, Berger C, et al. Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study Research Group. CMAJ. 2000;163(3):265–71.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maglinte GA, Hays RD, Kaplan RM. US general population norms for telephone administration of the SF-36v2. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(5):497–502.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burholt V, Nash P. Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire: normative data for Wales. J Public Health. 2011;33(4):587–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ware JE, Gandek B. The SF-36 Health Survey: development and use in mental health research at the IQLOA project. Int J Ment Health. 1994;23:73.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schlenk EA, Erlen JA, Dunbar-Jacob J, McDowell J, Engberg S, Sereika SM, et al. Health-related quality of life in chronic disorders: a comparison across studies using the MOS SF-36. Qual Life Res. 1998;7(1):57–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L. Short form 36 (SF36) Health Survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ. 1993;306(6890):1437–40.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morken T, Riise T, Moen B, Bergum O, Hauge SH, Holien S, et al. Frequent musculoskeletal symptoms and reduced health-related quality of life among industrial workers. Occup Med (Lond). 2002;52(2):91–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gatchel RJ, Mayer T, Dersh J, Robinson R, Polatin P. The association of the SF-36 health status survey with 1-year socioeconomic outcomes in a chronically disabled spinal disorder population. Spine. 1999;24(20):2162–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huge V, Schloderer U, Steinberger M, Wuenschmann B, Schops P, Beyer A, et al. Impact of a functional restoration program on pain and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain. Pain Med. 2006;7(6):501–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Picavet HS, Hoeymans N. Health related quality of life in multiple musculoskeletal diseases: SF-36 and EQ-5D in the DMC3 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(6):723–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aitken LM, Davey TM, Ambrose J, Connelly LB, Swanson C, Bellamy N. Health outcomes of adults 3 months after injury. Injury. 2007;38(1):19–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murad MS, O’Brien L, Farnworth L, Chien CW. Health status of people with work-related musculoskeletal disorders in return to work programs: a Malaysian study. Occup Ther Health Care. 2013;27(3):238–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hee HT, Whitecloud TS III, Myers L, Gaynor J, Roesch W, Ricciardi JE. SF-36 health status of workers compensation cases with spinal disorders. Spine J. 2001;1(3):176–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hee HT, Whitecloud TS III, Myers L, Roesch W, Ricciardi JE. Do worker’s compensation patients with neck pain have lower SF-36 scores? Eur Spine J. 2002;11(4):375–81.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gross DP, Zhang J, Steenstra I, Barnsley S, Haws C, Amell T, et al. Development of a computer-based clinical decision support tool for selecting appropriate rehabilitation interventions for injured workers. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(4):597–609.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stephens B, Gross DP. The influence of a continuum of care model on the rehabilitation of compensation claimants with soft tissue disorders. Spine. 2007;32(25):2898–904.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. 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. 1993;31(3):247–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grevitt M, Khazim R, Webb J, Mulholland R, Shepperd J. The short form-36 health survey questionnaire in spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(1):48–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guilfoyle MR, Seeley H, Laing RJ. The Short Form 36 health survey in spine disease—validation against condition-specific measures. Br J Neurosurg. 2009;23(4):401–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krousel-Wood MA, McCune TW, Abdoh A, Re RN. Predicting work status for patients in an occupational medicine setting who report back pain. Arch Fam Med. 1994;3(4):349–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen C, Hogg-Johnson S, Smith P. The recovery patterns of back pain among workers with compensated occupational back injuries. Occup Environ Med. 2007;64(8):534–40.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maruish ME, editor. User’s manual for the SF-36v2 health survey. 3rd ed. Lincoln: QualityMetric Health Incorporated; 2011.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Occupational Classification. Human resources and skills development Canada; 2006. www30.hrsdc.gc.ca/NOC/English/NOC/2006/Welcome.aspx. (Accessed 26 May 2014).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas P. Gross
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Fahad S. Algarni
    • 3
    • 4
  • Riikka Niemeläinen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Physical Therapy, 2-50 Corbett HallUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) Alberta Millard HealthEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Faculty of Rehabilitation MedicineUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  4. 4.Division of Health Rehabilitation SciencesKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations