Citation

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Hogg-Johnson SA. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1996; 29(6): 618-631.

Affiliation

Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1996, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<618::AID-AJIM6>3.0.CO;2-F

PMID

8773722

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the measurement properties of five generic health status measures in a cross-sectional study of injured workers. One hundred twenty-seven injured workers participated in the study. Forty-seven percent had disorders of the upper limb, 12% neck and upper back, and 27% lower back (14% unspecified). All participants completed a package containing: SF-36 (Acute), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). Duke Health Profile (Duke). Health status section of the Ontario Health Survey (OHS), and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP). Frequency distributions were examined, correlations carried out, and the ability to discriminate between part of body and overall health state evaluated using analysis of variance. The results showed a ceiling (healthy) effect in the OHS, NHP, and SIP. Correlations were moderate to good. Upper limb subjects appeared "healthier" than low back pain subjects. The instruments were able to discriminate between health states (p < 0.05) except the OHS-Physical function (p = 0.51). Different questionnaires give a different impression of health. Clinicians and researchers should be thoughtful in their selection of outcome measures as different instruments may alter the description, intervention, and priorization of a particular disorder.

Language: en