Quality of Life Research

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 329–341 | Cite as

Patient-based health status measurement in clinical practice: a study of its impact on epilepsy patients' care

  • Anita K Wagner
  • Bruce L Ehrenberg
  • Teresa A Tran
  • Kathleen M Bungay
  • Diane J Cynn
  • William H Rogers


The objective was to assess the potential benefits of the routine use of the MOS SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) in the care of ambulatory patients. The design was a longitudinal, prospective, randomized, controlled study set in the outpatient neurology clinic at the New England Medical Center. There were 163 consecutive patients with epilepsy who had 210 follow-up visits with one of two epileptologists. The patients completed the SF-36 before the patient-physician encounter and the forms were optically scanned. The SF-36 results of the intervention group patients were given to the physicians before the encounter and withheld for control group patients. For intervention group patients, the physicians completed a questionnaire assessing the impact of the SF-36 on the process of care. After the visit, all patients completed a satisfaction questionnaire. The main outcome measures were the physicians' responses to standardized questions about the usefulness of the SF-36 for communication with and management of epilepsy patients and the patients' responses to standardized questions about their satisfaction with care. The physicians indicated that the SF-36 provided new information in 63% of the intervention group encounters. A change in therapy was prompted in 13%. The physicians rated the SF-36 as at least moderately useful for communication in 14% of the encounters and to management in 8%. The lower (indicating worse health status) the patients' SF-36 scale scores, the more useful the SF-36 results were rated by the physicians for communication and management. It was concluded that the routine use of health status measures may enhance patients' care.

Key words: Clinical practice health status measurement MOS SF-36 Health Survey epilepsy. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    American College of Physicians. Comprehensive functional assessment for elderly patients: position paper. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rubenstein LV, Calkins DR, Fink A et al.How to help your patients function better [Topics in primary care medicine]. West J Med 1985; 143: 114-117.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brody S. Physician recognition of behavioral, psychological, and social aspects of medical care. Arch Intern Med 1980; 140: 1286-1289.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calkins DR, Rubenstein LV, Cleary PD et al.Failure of physicians to recognize functional disability in ambulatory patients. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114: 451-454.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schor EL, Lerner DJ, Malspeis S. Physicians' assessment of functional health status and well-being. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 309-314.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lohr KN. Applications of health status assessment measures in clinical practice. Overview of the Third Conference on Advances in Health Status Assessment. Med Care 1992; 30: MS1-MS14.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 293-307.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deyo RA, Patrick DL. Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Med Care 1989; 27: S252-S268.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tarlov AR, Ware JE, Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Perrin E, Zubkoff M. The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA 1989; 262: 025-930.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stewart AL. The Medical Outcomes Study framework of health indicators. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds. Measuring Functioning and Well-being. The Medical Outcomes Study Approach.Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The SF-36 Short-Form Health Status Survey: I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473-483.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey. Manual and Interpretation Guide.Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shiely JC, Bayliss MS, Keller SD, Tsai C, Ware JE. SF-36 Health Survey Annotated Bibliography. First Edition (1988-1995).Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. A Users Manual.Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Response HCIA, Inc. Operating Instructions. The RT-2000/SF-36 Report Formats.East Greenwich, RI: HCIA Response, Inc., 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nelson EC, Berwick DM. The measurement of health status in clinical practice. Med Care 1989; 27: S77-S90.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kurtin PS, Davies AR, Meyer KB, DeGiacomo JM, Kantz ME. Patient-based health status measures in outpatient dialysis. Early experiences in developing an outcomes assessment program. Med Care 1992; 30: MS136-MS149.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyer KB, Espindle DM, DeGiacomo JM, Jenuelson CS, Kurtin PS, Davies AR. Monitoring dialysis patients' health status. Am J Kidney Dis 1994; 24: 267-279.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rubenstein LV, Calkins DR, Young RT et al.Improving patient function: a randomized trial of functional disability screening. Ann Intern Med 1989; 111: 836-842.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rubenstein LV, McCoy JM, Cope DW et al.Improving patient functional status: a randomized trial of computer generated resource and management suggestions. Clin Res 1989; 37: 801A.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Health status information in clinical practice: the development and testing of patient profile reports. J Rheumatol 1988; 15: 338-344.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kazis LE, Callaghan LF, Meenan RF, Pincus T. Health status reports in the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 1243-1253.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wasson J, Hays R, Nelson E et al.The short-term effect of patient health status assessment in a health maintenance organization. Qual Life Res 1992; 1: 99-106.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Graber J, Rausch R, Engel J, Brook RH. A health-related quality of life instrument for patients evaluated for epilepsy surgery. Med Care 1992; 30: 299-319.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Devinsky O, Vickrey BG, Cramer J et al.Development of the quality of life in epilepsy (QOLIE) inventory. Epilepsia 1995; 36: 1089-1104.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wagner AK, Keller S, Baker GA, Ware JE, Chadwick D. Advances in methods for assessing the impact of epilepsy and antiepileptic drug therapy on patients' health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 115-134.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wagner AK, Bungay KM, Bromfield EB, Ehrenberg BL. Measurement of the health-related quality of life of adult people with epilepsy. Pharmacotherapy 1996; 16: 1-9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wagner AK, Vickrey BG. The routine measurement of health-related quality of life in the care of patients with epilepsy: rationale and research agenda.Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 169-177.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Davies AR, Ware JE. GHAA's Consumer Satisfaction Survey and User's Manual. Washington, DC: GHAA's Department of Research and Analysis, 1991.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Davies AR, Ware JE. Visit-specific Satisfaction Questionnaire. In: Davies AR, Ware JE, eds. GHAA's Consumer Satisfaction Survey and User's Manual.Washington, DC: GHAA's Department of Research and Analysis, 1991.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ware JE, Confidence intervals for individual scores. Med Outcomes Trust Bull 1994; 2: 3.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J et al.International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Qual Life Res 1992; 1: 349-351.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hirshfield-Bartek J, Hassey Dow K, Creaton E. Decreasing documentation time using a patient self assessment tool. Oncol Nursing Forum 1990; 17: 251-255.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nunnally J. Psychometric Theory.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Prisant LM, Carr AA, Bottini PB et al.Repeatability of automated ambulatory blood pressure measurements. Family Practice 1992; 34: 569-574.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anita K Wagner
    • 1
  • Bruce L Ehrenberg
    • 3
  • Teresa A Tran
    • 3
  • Kathleen M Bungay
    • 2
  • Diane J Cynn
    • 1
  • William H Rogers
    • 1
  1. 1.The Health InstituteNew England Medical CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryTufts University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of NeurologyNew England Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations