Quality of Life Research

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 527–536

The Natural Progression of Health-Related Quality of Life: Results of a Five-Year Prospective Study of SF-36 Scores in a Normative Population

  • Wilma M. Hopman
  • Claudie Berger
  • Lawrence Joseph
  • Tanveer Towheed
  • Elizabeth VandenKerkhof
  • Tassos Anastassiades
  • Jonathan D. Adachi
  • George Ioannidis
  • Jacques P. Brown
  • David A. Hanley
  • Emmanuel A. Papadimitropoulos
  • The CaMos Research Group
Article

Abstract

Background: Limited information exists regarding the natural progression of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in the general population, as most research has been cross-sectional or has followed populations with specific medical conditions. Such norms are important to establish, because the effect of any intervention may be confounded by changes due to the natural progression of HRQOL over time. Methods: Participants were randomly selected from 9 Canadian cities and surrounding rural areas. Changes in the eight domains and 2 summary component scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form (SF-36) were examined over a 5 year period (1996/1997–2001/2002). Mean changes were calculated for men and women within 10 year age categories. Multiple imputation was used to adjust for potential selection bias due to missing data. Results: The baseline sample included 6539 women and 2884 men. Loss to follow-up was 17% for women and 23% for men. Mean changes tended to be small, but there was an overall trend towards decreasing HRQOL over time. Changes were more pronounced in the older age groups and in the physically oriented domains. Younger age groups tended towards small mean improvements, particularly in the mentally oriented domains. Large standard errors suggest that on an individual level, large improvements in some participants are balanced by large declines in others. Conclusion: In general, the HRQOL of Canadians appears relatively stable over a 5 year period. However, care should be taken when assessing HRQOL longitudinally in certain age or gender groups, as changes associated with an intervention can potentially be confounded by the natural progression of HRQOL.

Keywords

Longitudinal Normative Prospective Quality of life SF-36 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ware, JE,Jr, Snow, KK, Kosinski, M, Gandek, B 1993SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation GuideThe Health Institute, New England Medical CenterBostonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ware, JE,Jr, Kosinski, M, Keller, SD 1994SF-36 Physical and Mental Summary Scales: A User’s ManualThe Health Institute, New England Medical CenterBostonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ware, JE,Jr. 2000SF-36 health survey updateSpine2531303139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andresen, EM, Meyers, AR 2000Health-related quality of life outcomes measuresArch Phys Med Rehab81S3045Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garratt, A, Schmidt, L, Mackintosh, A, Fitzpatrick, R 2002Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcomes measuresBr Med J32414171421Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bayliss, EA, Bayliss, MS, Ware, JE,Jr, Steiner, JF 2004Predicting declines in physical function in persons with multiple chronic medical conditions: What we can learn from the medical problem listHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes24755CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hemingway, H, Stafford, M, Stansfield, S, Shipley, M, Marmot, M 1997Is the SF-36 a valid measure of change in population health? Results from the Whitehall II studyBr Med J31512731279Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hopman WM, Berger C, Joseph L, Towheed T, vanden Kerkhof E, Anastassiades T, Cranney A, Adachi JD, Ioannidis G, Poliquin S, Brown JP, Murray TM, Hanley DA, Papadimitropoulos M, Tenenhouse A the CaMos Research Group. Stability of Normative Data for the SF-36 Health Survey: Results of a three-year prospective study in middle-aged Canadians. Can J Public Health 2004; 95: 387–391.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mein, G, Martikainen, P, Hemingway, H, Stansfeld, S, Marmot, M 2003Is retirement good or bad for mental and physical functioning? Whitehall II longitudinal study of civil servantsJ Epidemiol Commun Health574649Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hopman, WM Towheed, T Anastassiades, T Tenenhouse, A Poliquin, S Berger, C Joseph, L Brown, J Murray, T Adachi, JD Hanley, D Papadimitropoulos, M the CaMos Research Group2000Canadian Normative Data for the SF-36 Health SurveyCan Med Assoc J163265271Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hopman, WM Towheed, T Anastassiades, T Tenenhouse, A Poliquin, S Berger, C Joseph, L Brown, J Murray, T Adachi, JD Hanley, D Papadimitropoulos, M the CaMos Research Group2002Is there regional variation in the SF-36 scores of Canadian adults?Can J Public Health93233236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kreiger, N, Tenenhouse, A, Joseph, L, MacKenzie, T, Poliquin, S, Brown, J, Prior, JC, Rittmaster, R 1999Research Notes: The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos): Background, Rationale, MethodsCan J Aging18376387Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubin, D 1987Multiple Imputation for Non-response in SurveysWileyNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kass, RE, Raftery, AE 1995Bayes factorsJ Am Stat Assoc90773795Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walters, SJ, Brazier, JE 2003What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6DHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes114Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panopalis, P Petri, M Manzi, S Isenberg, A Gordon, C Senecal, J-L Penrod, JR Joseph, L St. Pierre, Y Pineau, C Fortin, PR Sutcliffe, N Goulet, J-R Choquette, D Grodzicky, T Esdaile, JM Clarke, AE the Tri-Nation Study Group2005The systemic lupus erythematosus tri-nation study: longitudinal changes in physical and mental well-beingRheumatology4475155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Testa, MA 2000Interpretation of quality of life outcomes: Issues that affect magnitude and meaningMedical Care38166174Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wilma M. Hopman
    • 1
  • Claudie Berger
    • 2
  • Lawrence Joseph
    • 3
  • Tanveer Towheed
    • 4
  • Elizabeth VandenKerkhof
    • 5
  • Tassos Anastassiades
    • 6
  • Jonathan D. Adachi
    • 7
  • George Ioannidis
    • 7
  • Jacques P. Brown
    • 8
  • David A. Hanley
    • 9
  • Emmanuel A. Papadimitropoulos
    • 10
  • The CaMos Research Group
    • 11
  1. 1.Clinical Research Centre, Kingston General Hospital and Department of Community Health and EpidemiologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.CaMos Methods CentreMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Department of Community Health and EpidemiologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  5. 5.Department of Anesthesiology; School of Nursing; Department of Community Health and EpidemiologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  6. 6.Division of Rheumatology, Department of MedicineQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  7. 7.Department of MedicineMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  8. 8.Laval UniversitySte-FoyCanada
  9. 9.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  10. 10.Faculty of PharmacyEli Lilly Canada Inc, Toronto, Canada and University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  11. 11.McGill University, Royal Victoria HospitalMontreal

Personalised recommendations