Evaluating podiatry services: Testing a treatment specific measure of health status
- 161 Downloads
This study reports on the preliminary testing of a new measure designed for use alongside EQ-5D in evaluating outcomes in podiatry: the Podiatry Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Individuals aged 18 years or more, receiving podiatry services in clinic or domicilliary locations across four NHS Trusts in Yorkshire and Humberside UK took part in a questionnaire survey. Respondents reported high levels of problems on all six PHQ dimensions. Correlations suggested that the PHQ and EQ-5D were measuring distinct constructs. The levels on each dimension were well defined in terms of self-rated morbidity on the PHQ visual analogue scale (PHQvas) and the EQ-5Dvas, although PHQvas appeared to be slightly more sensitive to changes in health on the dimensions. There was a strong relationship between clinicians' Podiatry Clinical Score rating and reported symptoms for four out of six PHQ dimensions and PHQvas. The PHQ was able to distinguish respondents in terms of their self-reported morbidity in EQ-5D and in terms of their morbidity as assessed by clinicians. It is suggested that the respondent completed PHQ appears to be a useful new measure for assessing foot-related health. However, further investigation of the psychometric properties of the measure is required.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User Manual. Boston Mass: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, 1994.Google Scholar
- 2.Kaplan RM, Anderson J. A general health policy model: Update and applications. Health Serv Res 1988; 23: 203–235.Google Scholar
- 3.Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Application of multi-attribute theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res 1982; 30: 1043–1069.Google Scholar
- 4.Brooks RG. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53–72.Google Scholar
- 5.Department of Health. The New NHS Modern and Dependable: A National Framework for Assessing Performance. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1998.Google Scholar
- 6.Bryan S, Parkin D, Donalsdon C. Chiropody and the QALY: A case study in assigning categories of disability and distress to patients. Health Policy 1991; 18: 169–185.Google Scholar
- 7.Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Nat Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 364–376.Google Scholar
- 8.Hamilton MA. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol, Neurosurg Psychiat 1960; 23: 56–62.Google Scholar
- 9.Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A social tariff for EuroQol: Results from a UK general population study. Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper No 138. University of York, 1995.Google Scholar
- 10.Guy W. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
- 11.Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status; results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. Br Med J 1998; 316: 736–741.Google Scholar
- 12.Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, (Second Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar