Quality of Life Research

, Volume 12, Issue 8, pp 1003–1012 | Cite as

Usefulness of the SF-8™ Health Survey for comparing the impact of migraine and other conditions

  • Diane M. Turner-Bowker
  • Martha S. Bayliss
  • John E. WareJr.
  • Mark Kosinski


Background: Migraine headaches have been shown to have substantial personal and societal implications. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessments of migraineurs have been used to monitor and evaluate patient- and population-based outcomes, and to evaluate effectiveness and responsiveness to treatment. In this paper, we test a new, even shorter generic health survey, the SF-8™ Health Survey (SF-8™), an alternate form that uses one question to measure each of the eight SF-36® Health Survey (SF-36®) domains, in a sub-sample of migraine sufferers. Methods: Data from 7557 participants surveyed via the Internet and mail were used to document the burden of migraine on HRQOL and to compare the relative burden of migraine with other chronic conditions using the SF-8. Results: Migraineurs' HRQOL is similar to those with congestive heart failure, hypertension and diabetes, and is better than those with depression. Migraine sufferers experience better physical health and worse mental health (MH) than those with osteoarthritis. Results support prior research indicating that the burden of migraine on functional health and well-being is considerable and comparable to other chronic conditions known to have substantial impact on HRQOL. Conclusions: The SF-8 may provide a more practical and efficient method to describe the burden of migraine in population studies.

HRQOL Migraine SF-8™ 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. Cephalalgia 1988; 8 (Suppl 7): 1–96.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Diamond S, Diamond ML, Reed M. Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: Data from the American Migraine Study II. Headache 2001; 41(7): 646–657.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rasmussen BK. Epidemiology of headache. Cephalalgia 2001; 21(7): 774–777.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breslau N, Rasmussen BK. The impact of migraine: Epidemiology, risk factors, and co-morbidities. Neurology 2001; 56(6 Suppl. 1): S4–S12.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, Reed ML. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States. Relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 1992; 267(1): 64–69.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O'Brien B, Goeree R, Streiner D. Prevalence of migraine headache in Canada: A population-based survey. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23(5): 1020–1026.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Osuntokun BO, Adeuja AO, Nottidge VA, et al. Prevalence of headache and migrainous headache in Nigerian Africans: A community-based study. East African Med J 1992; 69(4): 196–199.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rasmussen BK. Migraine and tension-type headache in a general population: Psychosocial factors. Int J Epidemiol 1992; 21(6): 1138–1143.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke CE, MacMillan L, Sondhi S, Wells NE. Economic and social impact of migraine. QJM 1996; 89(1): 77–84.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Breslau N, Davis GC. Migraine and psychiatric disorders: A prospective epidemiologic study. Clin Neuropharmacol 1992; 15 (Suppl 1 Pt A): 279A–80A.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Breslau N, Davis GC. Migraine, major depression and panic disorder: A prospective epidemiologic study of young adults. Cephalalgia 1992; 12(2): 85–90.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Breslau N, Davis GC. Migraine, physical health and psychiatric disorder: A prospective epidemiologic study in young adults. Journal of Psychiatric Research 1993; 27(2): 211–221.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breslau N, Davis GC, Schultz LR, Peterson EL. Joint 1994 Wolff Award Presentation. Migraine and major depression: A longitudinal study. Headache 1994; 34(7): 387–393.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Breslau N, Schultz LR, Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Lucia VC, Welch KM. Headache and major depression: Is the association specific to migraine? Neurology 2000; 54(2): 308–313.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lipton RB, Hamelsky SW, Kolodner KB, Steiner TJ, Stewart WF. Migraine, quality of life, and depression: A population-based case-control study. Neurology 2000; 55(5): 629–635.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hu XH, Markson LE, Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Berger ML. Burden of migraine in the United States: Disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159(8): 813–818.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerth WC, Carides GW, Dasbach EJ, Visser WH, Santanello NC. The multinational impact of migraine symptoms on healthcare utilisation and work loss. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19(2): 197–206.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Simon D. Medical consultation for migraine: Results from the American Migraine Study. Headache 1998; 38(2): 87–96.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rasmussen BK, Jensen R, Olesen J. A population-based analysis of the diagnostic criteria of the International Headache Society. Cephalalgia 1991; 11(3): 129–134.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Celentano DD, Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Reed ML. Medication use and disability among migraineurs: A national probability sample survey. Headache 1992; 32(5): 223–228.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Medical Care 1989; 27 (Suppl 3): S217–S232.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holmes WF, MacGregor EA, Dodick D. Migraine-related disability: Impact and implications for sufferers' lives and clinical issues. Neurology 2001; 56 (6 Suppl 1): S13–S19.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51(11): 1055–1068.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cohen JA, Beall D, Beck A, et al. Sumatriptan treatment for migraine in a health maintenance organization: Economic, humanistic, and clinical outcomes. Clin Ther 1999; 21(1): 190–204.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dahlof C, Bouchard J, Cortelli P, et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. II: Health-related quality of life. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11 (Suppl 1): 24–34.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lang E, Kastner S, Neundorfer B, Bickel A. Konnen Therapieempfehlungen oder Patientenseminare die Effektivitat der ambulanten Versorgung von Patienten mit Kopfschmerzen verbessern? Effects of recommendations and patient seminars on effectivity of outpatient treatment for headache. Schmerz 2001; 15(4): 229–240.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lofland JH, Johnson NE, Batenhorst AS, Nash DB. Changes in resource use and outcomes for patients with migraine treated with sumatriptan: A managed care perspective. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159(8): 857–863.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meletiche DM, Lofland JH, Young WB. Quality-of-life differences between patients with episodic and transformed migraine. Headache 2001; 41(6): 573–578.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Monzon MJ, Lainez MJ. Quality of life in migraine and chronic daily headache patients. Cephalalgia 1998; 18(9): 638–643.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muscari-Tomaioli G, Allegri F, Miali E, et al. Observational study of quality of life in patients with headache receiving homeopathic treatment. Br Homeopathic J 2001; 90(4): 189–197.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Osterhaus JT, Townsend RJ, Gandek B, Ware JE Jr. Measuring the functional status and well-being of patients with migraine headache. Headache 1994; 34(6): 337–343.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Solomon GD. Evolution of the measurement of quality of life in migraine. Neurology 1997; 48 (3 Suppl 3): S10–S15.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Solomon GD, Skobieranda FG, Genzen JR. Quality of life assessment among migraine patients treated with Sumatriptan. Headache 1995; 35(8): 449–454.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B. How to Score Version 2 of the SF-12TM Health Survey (With a Supplement Documenting Version 1). Lincoln (RI): QualityMetric Incorporated, 2002.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473–483.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE, Gandek B. How to Score and Interpret Single-Item Health Status Measures: A Manual For Users of the SF-8TM Health Survey. Lincoln (RI): QualityMetric Incorporated, 2001.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Data Releases: Demographic profiles [Web Page]. Available at http://www.census. gov/main/www/cen2000.html. (Accessed 2002).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M. SF-36 Physical & Mental Health Summary Scales: A Manual For Users Of Version 1, 2nd Edition. Lincoln (RI): QualityMetric Incorporated, 2001.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, et al. Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989; 262(7): 907–913.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Intercooled Stata 6.0 for Windows. College Station (TX): Stata Corporation, 1999.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M. Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 405–413.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale (NJ): L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Adelman JU, Sharfman M, Johnson R, et al. Impact of oral sumatripan on workplace productivity, health-related quality of life, healthcare use, and patient satisfaction with medication in nurses with migraine. Am J Managed Care 1996; 2: 1407–1416.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane M. Turner-Bowker
    • 1
  • Martha S. Bayliss
    • 1
  • John E. WareJr.
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark Kosinski
    • 1
  1. 1.QualityMetric IncorporatedLincolnUSA
  2. 2.Health Assessment LabWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations