Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (48)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Suarez-Almazor, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Vincent, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Suarez-Almazor, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Vincent, D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Rheumatology 2000; 39: 783-790
© 2000 British Society for Rheumatology

Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments

M. E. Suarez-Almazor, C. Kendall1, J. A. Johnson2, K. Skeith1 and D. Vincent1

Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA,
1 University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta and
2 Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Alberta, Institute of Pharmaco-Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Objective. To evaluate the discriminative performance over time of specific, generic and preference-based instruments in patients with low back pain (LBP) in clinical settings.

Methods. Forty-six consecutive patients with LBP participated in the study. Self-response questionnaires were administered at baseline and 3 and 6 months, including the following instruments: Oswestry (specific for LBP), SF-36 (generic), EuroQol (EQ-5D) and Health Utilities Index (HUI) (preference-based). EQ-5D and HUI weights were derived from previously published evaluations in the general population. Patients were asked to compare their health status with their baseline health and were categorized on the basis of an ordinal scale as: (a) improved; (b) stable; or (c) worse. Changes in the instruments were evaluated by rescaling the instruments over the same scale interval and by estimating standardized effect sizes between two time points for the three categories of change.

Results. Thirty-seven patients (80%) completed both the baseline and the 3-month questionnaire and 34 the baseline and 6-month questionnaires (74%). Overall, at both time points, approximately half of the patients reported no changes in their health status. Correlations between instruments were generally low, suggesting that they measure different health domains. The scales which discriminated best between patients who improved and those who deteriorated at 3 months were the Oswestry, the HUI, the EQ-5D and the SF-36 bodily pain and emotional role subscales. The SF-36 subscales appeared to have a floor effect for those patients who had deteriorated.

Conclusions. Most SF-36 subscales did not adequately reflect changes in the health status of patients with LBP, mostly for those who reported deterioration. Preference-derived quality-of-life scores appeared to discriminate among patients who improved and those who deteriorated, although not as consistently as the disease-specific measure (Oswestry). Additional research is needed to evaluate the role of generic measures of quality of life in the assessment of patients with LBP before they can be widely implemented in clinical settings or outcomes research.

Correspondence to: M. E. Suarez-Almazor, Health Services Research, Baylor College of Medicine, Veteran Affairs Medical Center (152), 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030, USA.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.