Responsiveness of SF-36 Health Survey and Patient Generated Index in people with chronic knee pain commenced on oral analgesia: analysis of data from a randomised controlled clinical trial
- 366 Downloads
(1) To assess the responsiveness of the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and Patient Generated Index (PGI) in people with knee pain who were given oral analgesics; and (2) to perform content analysis of the SF-36 and PGI aiming to identify differences between the instruments and causes of different responsiveness.
An observational study nested within a randomised controlled trial comparing oral paracetamol, ibuprofen or a combination of the two in 884 community-derived people with chronic knee pain. Each participant was given the SF-36 and PGI questionnaires to fill out at baseline, day 10, week 7 and week 13 after commencement on analgesia. Responsiveness was measured as a standardised response mean from baseline, and contents of the instruments were analysed.
The PGI showed the greater responsiveness to analgesics than the SF-36 throughout the study period. Only the Bodily Pain Score of the SF-36 showed comparable responsiveness to the PGI. The standardised response mean of the PGI at 13 weeks was 0.61 (95% CI 0.51–0.72), and that of the Bodily Pain Score of the SF-36 was 0.49 (95% CI 0.39–0.58). Content analysis of the PGI identified multiple areas which are not represented in the SF-36 which may help explain its performance.
Overall the PGI is more responsive than the SF-36 to commonly used oral analgesics taken for knee pain. The PGI is able to elicit areas of individualised health-related quality of life which are not captured by the SF-36.
KeywordsKnee pain Osteoarthritis SF-36 Patient Generated Index Responsiveness Health-related quality of life
The authors are grateful to Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare International Ltd for financial support for the initial RCT and to the other investigators and research nurses involved in the trial which generated the data analysed in the present study.
There is no specific grant associated with this study. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare International Ltd funded the original randomised controlled trial which provided the data for analysis, but the conception and design of the current nested study were undertaken independently to the funder with their approval.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 6.Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 10.Angst, F., Aeschlimann, A., Steiner, W., & Stucki, G. (2001). Responsiveness of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index as compared with the SF-36 in patients with osteoarthritis of the legs undergoing a comprehensive rehabilitation intervention. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 60(9), 834–840.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Doherty, M., Hawkey, C., Goulder, M., Gibb, I., Hill, N., Aspley, S., et al. (2011). A randomised controlled trial of ibuprofen, paracetamol or a combination tablet of ibuprofen/paracetamol in community-derived people with knee pain. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 70(9), 1534–1541.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Turner-Bowker, D. M., Gandek, B., & Maruish, M. E. (2007). User’s manual for the SF-36v2(TM) health survey (2nd ed.). Lincoln, RI, USA: QualityMetric Incorporated.Google Scholar
- 18.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behaviour sciences (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale.Google Scholar
- 20.Kosinski, M., Keller, S. D., Hatoum, H. T., Kong, S. X., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (1999). The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and score reliability. Medical Care, 37(5 Suppl), MS10–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Rannou, F., Boutron, I., Jardinaud-Lopez, M., Meric, G., Revel, M., Fermanian, J., et al. (2007). Should aggregate scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey be used to assess quality of life in knee and hip osteoarthritis? A national survey in primary care. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 15(9), 1013–1018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., Leidy, N. K., Martin, M. L., Molsen, E., et al. (2011). Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value in Health, 14(8), 967–977.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., Leidy, N. K., Martin, M. L., Molsen, E., et al. (2011). Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: Part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value in Health, 14(8), 978–988.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar