medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

2004, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

salud publica mex 2004; 46 (4)

Towards a Mexican normative standard for measurement of the Short Format 36 health-related quality of life instrument

Durán-Arenas L, Gallegos-Carrillo K, Salinas-Escudero G, Martínez-Salgado H

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 306-315
PDF size: 121.72 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective. To present the results of the application of the short format 36 instrument (SF-36) in the Mexican states of Sonora and Oaxaca. The levels of quality of life were compared with those from Canada and the United States. Material and Methods. The data were obtained using a survey on health service access, usage, and quality. The SF-36 is composed of 36 questions, which represent eight different domains on the health-related quality of life. These domains are used to estimate the physical and mental components of health. Data analysis was performed to calculate the average scores for each domain for the total sample, by gender and age groups in each state. The regional differences were assessed by the difference of means. Results. The total response was 98.5% of the 4200 selected households. The percent response values were similar between the two states. A total of 5961 subjects older than 25 years of age completed the questionnaire. Males scored higher than females in all domains and in both components. Regardless of sex, the highest variation was observed in adults up to 64 years of age mainly in three domains: overall health, social function, and mental health; in the 65-74 year age group occurred mostly in social function and mental health; and in adults older than 75 years only in mental health. The young adult age group (25 to 44 years) showed variation in a greater number of domains, while women exhibited more variation in the “extreme” age groups, 25 to 34 years and 75 years and older. The mean scores in our sample were higher than those found in Canada and the United States in five domains and in the two summary components. Canada showed higher scores in the other three domains (overall health, social function, and mental health). Conclusions. SF-36 data are not available at the national level; hence, the authors recommend that their study results may serve as the normative reference for SF-36 in Mexico. Researchers using the SF-36 could compare their results with our reference, adjusted by gender and age in population-based studies. Considering that the study regions have contrasting social and economic characteristics, the data from the more developed state, Sonora, may be used as the normative standard. Data from Oaxaca would be used as the reference for less-developed states.


REFERENCES

  1. Zúñiga AM, Carrillo JGT, Fos PJ, Gandek B, Medina MRM. Evaluación del estado de salud con la encuesta SF-36. Resultados preliminares en México. Salud Publica Mex 1999; 41: 110-118.

  2. Velarde E, Avila C. Evaluación de la calidad de vida. Salud Publica Mex; 44(4):349-361.

  3. Hopman WM, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, Tenenhouse A, Poliquin S, Berger C et al. Canadian normative data for the Sf-36: The need for regional norms. J Public Health Med 1995: 17: 46-50.

  4. Hopman WM, Berger C, Joseph L, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, Tenenhouse A et al. Is there regional variation in the SF-36 scores of Canadian adults? Can J Public Health. 2002 May-Jun;93(3):233-237.

  5. Wood-Dauphinne SW. The Canadian SF-36 health survey. Normative data add to its value. CMAJ 2000;163: 284-284.

  6. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney CA, Rogers WH, Raczek A. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and measures: Summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 1995;33 (4 suppl): AS264-AS279.

  7. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30:473-483.

  8. Ware JE. SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston (MA): The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre; 1993.

  9. Ware JE. The SF-36 health survey. En: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life and pharmaco-economics in clinical trials. Second Edition. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven Publisher; 1996:337-345.

  10. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 physical and mental health summary scale: A User’s manual. Boston (MA): The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre; 1994.

  11. Jenkinson C, Stewart-Brown S, Petersen S, Paice C. Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53:46-50.

  12. Jenkinson C, Coulter C, Wright L. Short form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire: Normative data for adults of working age. BMJ 1993;306:1437-1440.

  13. Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50: 79-93.

  14. Berzon RA, Understanding and using health- related quality of life instruments within clinical research studies. En: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers FM, ed. Quality of life assessments in clinical trials: Methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998:3-15.

  15. Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PFM, Bonsel GJ, Aaroson NK. An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. Med Care 1997;35:522-537.

  16. Hemingway H, Stafford M, Stanfield S, Shipley M, Marmot M. Is the SF-36 a valid measure of change in population health? Result from the Whitehall II study. BMJ 1997; 315:1273-1279.

  17. Kreiger N, Tenenhouse A, Joseoh L, Mackenzie T, Poliquin S, Brown JP et al. The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (Camos): Background, rationale, methods. Can J Aging 1999;18: 376-387.

  18. Lyons RA, Fielder H, Littlepage NC. Measuring health status with the SF-36: The need for regional norms. J Public Health Med 1995; 17:46-50.

  19. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. Them MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical test of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31: 247-263.

  20. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr,Lu JFR, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short form health survey: III. Test of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994;32: 40-66.

  21. Melzoff J. Critical thinking about research: Psychology and related fields. Washington, DC: American Psychological Associations; 1998.

  22. Mishra G, Schofield MJ. Norms for the physical and mental health component summary scores of the SF-36 for young, middle-aged and older Australian women. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 215-220.

  23. Raftery A, Lewis S. How many iterations in the Gibbs sampler? En: Bernardo JM, Berger JO, Dawid JO, Smith AFM, ed. Bayesian statistics 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992;763-773.

  24. Rubin D. Multiple imputation for non-respondents in surveys. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons; 1987.

  25. Spiegelhter DJ, Thomas A, Best NG, Gilks WR. BUGS: Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling, Version 0.5, (version ii). Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit; 1996.

  26. Statistics Canada provincial census data, 1991. Age, sex and marital status. The Nation Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 1993. (Cat. No. 93-310).

  27. Statistics Canada Provincial Census Data, 1991. Profile of census metropolitan areas and census agglomeration, part A. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 1993. (Cat. No. 93-337).

  28. Watson EK, Firman DW, Baade PD, Ring I. Telephone administration of the SF-36 health survey: Validation studies and population norms for adults in Queensland, Aust. N Z J Public Health 1996;20:359-363.

  29. Wood-Dauphinee SW, Gauthier L, Gandek B, Magnan L, Pierre U.Readying a US measure of health status, for use in Canada. Clin Invest Med 1997,20: 224-238.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com