Quality of Life Research

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 907–914 | Cite as

Use of the SF-36 in the Evaluation of a Drug Detoxification Program

  • Dirk Richter
  • Bernd Eikelmann
  • Klaus Berger


Objective: The aim of this study was to analyse whether the SF-36 questionnaire is a useful tool to evaluate the treatment outcome of a drug detoxification program. Methods: A pre–post assessment of consecutive referrals to a drug detoxification program of a psychiatric state hospital in north-western Germany was conducted. Seventy-nine males and twenty-one females with a diagnosis of multiple substance use were included. MOS short form 36 (SF-36) was used upon admission and discharge to assess changes in self-perceived health status. Severity scales from the addiction severity interview (ASI) were used to rate severity of illness by a physician at program entry. Results: Patients with severe comorbidity (hepatitis B, depression, attempted suicide) reported significant worse health states, compared to those without. Positive correlations between physician rated addiction severity and patients' self-perceived health status were observed, most strongly for mental health status. For the 48 patients with 2 assessments significant improvements during the treatment period were observed on SF-36 subscales ‘general health’ and ‘physical functioning’. Patients with severe physical and/or mental problems upon admission had more benefits from treatment than patients without. Conclusions: SF-36 questionnaire is a useful instrument to monitor the health status and to evaluate treatment effects in drug addicts.

Health status Quality of life Substance abuse treatment centres (MeSH) Substance-related disorders Treatment outcome 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Richter D, Berger K, Eikelmann B. Was kennzeichnet den psychiatrischen Problempatienten? Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung zur Patienteneinstufung in der Psychiatrie-Personalverordnung (What characterizes the psychiatric problem patient?). Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 1999; 67: 21-28.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McLellan AT, Woody GE, Metzger D, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of addiction treatments: Reasonable expectations, appropriate comparisons. Milbank Q 1996; 74: 51-85.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith GR. State of science of mental health and substance abuse patient outcomes assessment. New Directions for Mental Health Services, No. 71, Fall 1996; 59-67.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thornicroft G, Tansella N (eds) Mental Health Outcome Measures. Berlin: Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tarlov AR, Ware JE, Greenfield S, et al. The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA 1989; 262: 925-930.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473-483.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wells KB, Stewart A, Hays RD, et al. The functioning and well-being of depressed patients. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989; 262: 914-919.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ryan CF, White RM. Health status at entry to methadone maintenance treatment using the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire. Addiction 1996; 91: 39-45.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perneger TV, Giner F, del Rio M, Mino A. Randomised Trial of Heroin Maintenance Programme for Addicts Who Fail in Conventional Drug Treatments. Br Med J 1998; 317: 13-18.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torrens M, San L, Martinez A, et al. Use of the Nottingham health profile for measuring health status of patients in methadone maintenance treatment. Addiction 1997; 92: 707-716.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McLellan AT, Luborsky L, Woody GE, O'Brian CP. An improved evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients. The addiction severity index. J Nerv Ment Dis 1980; 168: 26-33.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gandek B, Ware JE. for the IQOLA Project Group. Methods for validating and norming translations of Health Status Questionnaires: The IQOLA Project Approach. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 953-959.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bullinger M. German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 Health Survey: Preliminary results from the IQOLA Project. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41: 1359-1366.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berg JE, Brevik JI. Complaints that predict drop-out from a detoxification and counseling unit. Addict Behav 1998; 23: 35-40.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bullinger M, Kirchberger I, Ware J. Der deutsche SF-36 Health Survey. Übersetzung und psychometrische Testung eines krankheitsübergreifenden Instruments zur Erfassung der gesundheitsbezogenen Lebensqualität (The German SF-36 Health Survey). Z Gesundheitswissensch 1995; 3: 21-38.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Linzer M, et al. Health-related quality of life in primary care patients with mental disorders. Results from the PRIME-MD 1000 Study. JAMA 1995; 274: 1511-1517.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wells KB, Sherbourne CD. Functioning and utility for current health of patients with depression or chronic medical conditions in managed, primary care practices. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56: 897-904.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ness R, Handelsman L, Aronson MJ, et al. The acute effects of a rapid medical detoxification upon dysphoria and other psychopathology experienced by heroin abusers. J Nerv Ment Dis 1994; 182: 353-359.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hsu LM. Regression toward the mean associated with measurement error and the identification of improvement and deterioration in psychotherapy. J Consult Clin Psychol 1995; 63: 141-144.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stigler SM. Regression towards the mean, historically considered. Stat Meth Med Res 1997; 6: 103-114.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Richter
    • 1
  • Bernd Eikelmann
    • 2
  • Klaus Berger
    • 3
  1. 1.Westphalian Clinic for Psychiatry and PsychotherapyMuensterGermany
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry and PsychotherapyCity HospitalKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Epidemiology and Social MedicineMuenster UniversityMuensterGermany

Personalised recommendations