Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Which generic health related quality of life questionnaire should be used in older inpatients: Comparison of the duke health profile and the MOS short-form SF-36?

  • Published:
The journal of nutrition, health & aging

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of our study was to compare advantages and limitations of two generic Quality of Life questionnaires administered in older inpatients.

Design

Two validated generic health-related Quality of Life instruments: the MOS Short-Form 36 (9 dimensions, 36 items) and the Duke Health Profile (6 dimensions, 4 dysfunctions, 17 items) were administered to inpatients over 65 years.

Setting and participants

The sample was drawn from the CliniQualVie program that assessed systematically Quality of Life among hospitalized inpatients (18–79 years) in 10 medical and surgical wards at Nancy University Hospital.

Results

The two self-administered questionnaires were completed by 701 patients over 65 years at admission (mean age 71±4, 63% men). The proportion of patients who completed all items were 72.5% for the Duke and 66.9% fo 9% for the 36 (p<.001). The Dukes’s internal consistency was low as compared with the SF-36, but other psychometric properties were comparable. Good correlations (Spearman) were observed between the two questionnaires for physical health (0.59, p<.0001), mental health (0.68, p<.0001) and health perception (0.56, p<.0001) scores. Low correlations were observed for the social score.

Conclusions

This is the first study to our knowledge to assess the interest of using the Duke Health Profile in a general elderly inpatients population as compared with the SF-36 questionnaire. Although these two questionnaires have four comparable dimensions, they differ in their content and psychometric properties. The Duke questionnaire, due to its better completion rate and despite some psychometric limitations may be useful in this population, particularly in the more frail patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sanders C, Egger M, Donovan J, et al. Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials: bibliographic study. BMJ 1998;317: 1191–1194.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, et al. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ. 2002;324: 1417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life in older people: a structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1651–1668.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Briançon S, Gergonne B, Guillemin F, et al. Disease-specific versus generic measurement of Health Related Quality of Life in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies: an inpatient investigation of the SF-36 and four disease-specific instruments. In: Mesbah M, Cole BF, Ting Lee ML, eds. Statistical methods for quality of life studies. Design, measurements and analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 2002;87–100.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis 1987;40: 373–383.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ware MA, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30: 473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Parkerson GR, Broadhead WE, Tse CK. The Duke Health Profile: a 17 item measure of health and dysfunction. Med Care 1990;28: 1056–1072.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Leplège A, Mesbah M, Marquis P. Preliminary analysis of the psychometric properties of the French version of an international questionnaire measuring the quality of life: the MOS SF-36 (version 1.1). Rev Epidemiol Sante Pub 1995;43: 371–379.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Guillemin F, Paul-Dauphin A, Virion JM, et al. [The DUKE health profile: a generic instrument to measure the quality of life tied to health]. Sante Publique 1997;9: 35–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hyland ME. A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life 2003;1: 24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16: 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR. Psychometric Theory, 3rd Ed. New-York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959;56: 81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Parkerson GR, Broadhead WE, Tse CK. Comparison of the Duke Health Profile and the MOS Short-Form in healthy young adults. Med Care 1991;29: 679–683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Osborne RH, Hawthorne G, Lew EA, et al. Quality of life assessment in the community-dwelling elderly: validation of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AqoL) instrument and comparison with the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56: 138–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Novella J, Ankri J, Morrone I, et al. Evaluation of the quality of life in dementia with a generic quality of life questionnaire: the Duke Health Profile. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2001;12: 158–166.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Coste J, Walter E, Venot A. A new approach to selection and weighting of items in evaluative composite measurement scales. Stat Med 1995;14: 2565–2580.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gandeck B, Sinclair SJ, Kosinski M, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the SF-36 health survey in Medicare managed care. Health Care Financ Rev 2004;25: 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Andresen EM, Bowley N, Rothenberg BM, et al. Test-retest performance of a mailed version of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey among older adults. Med Care 1996;34: 1165–1170.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Walters SJ, Munro JF, Brazier JE. Using the SF-36 with older adults: a crosssectional community-based survey. Age Ageing 2001;30: 337–343.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Parker SG, Peet SM, Jagger C, et al. Measuring health status in older patients. The SF-36 in practice. Age Ageing 1998;27: 13–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hill S, Harries U, Popay J. Is the short form 36 (SF-36) suitable for routine health outcomes assessment in health care for older people? Evidence from preliminary work in community based health services in England. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50: 94–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stadnyk K, Calder J, Rockwood K. Testing the measurement properties of the Short Form-36 Health Survey in a frail elderly population. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51: 827–835.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Guillemin F, Virion JM, Escudier P, et al. Effect on ostearthritis of spa therapy at Bourbonne-les-Bains. Joint Bone Spine 2001;68: 499–503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen AL, Broadhead WE, Doe EA, et al. Patient acceptance of two health status measures: the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey and the Duke Health Profile. Fam Med 1993;25: 536–539.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzpatrick R. Older people specific health status and quality of life: a structured review of self-assessed instruments. J Eval Clin Pract 2005;11:315–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Power M, Quinn K, Schmidt S, WHOQOL-OLD group. Development of the WHOQOL-OLD module. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:2197–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Unit of Geriatrics and Internal Medicine, CHU Nancy, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France

    Christine Perret-Guillaume

  2. School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Nancy I Poincaré University, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France

    S. Briancon & F. Guillemin

  3. Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hôpital Marin, CHU Nancy, Nancy, France

    S. Briancon, F. Guillemin, F. Empereur & P. L. Nguyen Thi

  4. EA 4003, Nancy, France

    Christine Perret-Guillaume, S. Briancon & F. Guillemin

  5. Internal and Vascular Medicine, Hôpital de Brabois, CHU Nancy, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France

    D. Wahl

  6. Inserm U961, Nancy I Poincaré University, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France

    D. Wahl

  7. Unit of Geriatrics and Internal Medicine, Hôpital de Brabois, CHU Nancy, rue du Morvan, F54511, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France

    Christine Perret-Guillaume

Authors
  1. Christine Perret-Guillaume
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Briancon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Guillemin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Wahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. Empereur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. L. Nguyen Thi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Perret-Guillaume.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perret-Guillaume, C., Briancon, S., Guillemin, F. et al. Which generic health related quality of life questionnaire should be used in older inpatients: Comparison of the duke health profile and the MOS short-form SF-36?. J Nutr Health Aging 14, 325–331 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-010-0074-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-010-0074-1

Key words

Search

Navigation