User's Manual For The Sf-36v2tm Health Survey Average ratng: 6,5/10 5828 reviews

Defeat him and approach the second bandit. If he is still alive, he will speak his final words. Note - For pacifist players - wait until the wounded bandit dies and then lure out his friend. The hunt begins manual download. Otherwise, you should search his corpse and take Bloody hoof-pick.

  1. User's Manual For The Sf-36v2 Health Survey
  2. User's Manual For The Sf-36v2 Health Survey Second Edition
  3. User’s Manual For The Sf-36v2 Health Survey Third Edition
  4. Sf-36v2 Health Survey
    Maruish ME (2011) User’s manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey (3rd ed.). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.
  • TITLE: Psychometrics of the Short Form 36 Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) and the Quality of Life Scale for Drug Addicts (QOL-DAv2.0) in Chinese Mainland Patients with Methadone Maintenance Treatment
  • AUTHORS: Kaina Zhou, Guihua Zhuang, Hongmei Zhang, Peifeng Liang, Juan Yin, Lingling Kou, Mengmeng Hao, Lijuan You
  • JOURNAL NAME: PLOS ONEDOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079828Sep 09, 2014
  • ABSTRACT: Objective To test psychometrics of the Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) and the Quality of Life Scale for Drug Addicts (QOL-DAv2.0) in Chinese mainland patients with methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). Methods A total of 1,212 patients were recruited from two MMT clinics in Xi’an, China. Reliability was estimated with Cronbach’s α and intra-class correlation (ICC). Convergent and discriminant validity was assessed using multitrait-multimethod correlation matrix. Sensitivity was measured with ANOVA and relative efficiency. Responsiveness was evaluated by pre-post paired-samples t-test and standardized response mean based on the patients’ health status changes following 6-month period. Results Cronbach’s α of the SF-36v2 physical and mental summary components were 0.80 and 0.86 (eight scales range 0.73–0.92) and the QOL-DAv2.0 was 0.96 (four scales range: 0.80–0.93). ICC of the SF-36v2 two components were 0.86 and 0.85 (eight scales range: 0.72–0.87) and the QOL-DAv2.0 was 0.94 (four scales range: 0.88–0.92). Convergent validity was lower between the two instruments (γ <0.70) while discriminant validity was acceptable within each instrument. Sensitivity was satisfied in self-evaluated health status (both instruments) and average daily methadone dose (SF-36v2 physical functioning and vitality scales; QOL-DAv2.0 except psychology scale). Responsiveness was acceptable in the improved health status change (SF-36v2 except vitality scale; QOL-DAv2.0 except psychology and symptoms scales) and deteriorated health status change (SF-36v2 except vitality, social functioning and mental health scales; QOL-DAv2.0 except society scale). Conclusions The SF-36v2 and the QOL-DAv2.0 are valid tools and can be used independently or complementary according to different emphases of health-related quality of life evaluation in patients with MMT.
doi: 10.1136/qshc.3.4.180
PMID: 10140231

Manuals provided. Self-management techniques will be emphasized and explored in more detail in the subsequent disease-specific trainings. Section 2: Pediatric Asthma Asthma, the most common chronic health condition in children, is a major cause of pediatric hospitalizations and missed school days. National Health Interview Survey. The Short Form (36) Health Survey is a 36-item, patient-reported survey of patient health. Amcrest prohd 1080p setup. The SF-36 is a measure of health status and an abbreviated variant of it, the SF-6D, is commonly used in health economics as a variable in the quality-adjusted life year calculation to determine the cost-effectiveness of a health treatment. The original SF-36 stemmed from the Medical Outcome Study, MOS.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

User's Manual For The Sf-36v2 Health Survey

Abstract

User's Manual For The Sf-36v2 Health Survey Second Edition

OBJECTIVE--To assess the reliability of the SF 36 health survey questionnaire in two patient populations. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire followed up, if necessary, by two reminders at two week intervals. Retest questionnaires were administered postally at two weeks in the first study and at one week in the second study. SETTING--Outpatient clinics and four training general practices in Grampian region in the north east of Scotland (study 1); a gastroenterology outpatient clinic in Aberdeen Royal Hospitals Trust (study 2). PATIENTS--1787 patients presenting with one of four conditions: low back pain, menorrhagia, suspected peptic ulcer, and varicose veins and identified between March and June 1991 (study 1) and 573 patients attending a gastroenterology clinic in April 1993. MAIN MEASURES--Assessment of internal consistency reliability with Cronbach's alpha coefficient and of test-retest reliability with the Pearson correlation coefficient and confidence interval analysis. RESULTS--In study 1, 1317 of 1746 (75.4%) correctly identified patients entered the study and in study 2, 549 of 573 (95.8%). Both methods of assessing reliability produced similar results for most of the SF 36 scales. The most conservative estimates of reliability gave 95% confidence intervals for an individual patient's score difference ranging from -19 to 19 for the scales measuring physical functioning and general health perceptions, to -65.7 to 65.7 for the scale measuring role limitations attributable to emotional problems. In a controlled clinical trial with sample sizes of 65 patients in each group, statistically significant differences of 20 points can be detected on all eight SF 36 scales. CONCLUSIONS--All eight scales of the SF 36 questionnaire show high reliability when used to monitor health in groups of patients, and at least four scales possess adequate reliability for use in managing individual patients. Further studies are required to test the feasibility of implementing the SF 36 and other outcome measures in routine clinical practice within the health service.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.0M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, Mowat A, Mowat A. Importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures. Qual Health Care. 1992 Jun;1(2):89–93.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tarlov AR, Ware JE, Jr, Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Perrin E, Zubkoff M. The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA. 1989 Aug 18;262(7):925–930. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lansky D, Butler JB, Waller FT. Using health status measures in the hospital setting: from acute care to 'outcomes management'. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS57–MS73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lancaster TR, Singer DE, Sheehan MA, Oertel LB, Maraventano SW, Hughes RA, Kistler JP. The impact of long-term warfarin therapy on quality of life. Evidence from a randomized trial. Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Arch Intern Med. 1991 Oct;151(10):1944–1949. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dixon J, Welch HG. Priority setting: lessons from Oregon. Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):891–894. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993 Mar;31(3):247–263. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JF. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS253–MS265. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Buckingham JK, Russell IT. The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? BMJ. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1440–1444.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, Ware JE, Jr, Davies AR. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS240–MS252. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992 Jul 18;305(6846):160–164.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L. Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1437–1440.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Russell IT. SF 36 health survey questionnaire: II. Responsiveness to changes in health status in four common clinical conditions. Qual Health Care. 1994 Dec;3(4):186–192.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

User’s Manual For The Sf-36v2 Health Survey Third Edition

Supplementary Materials

Sf-36v2 Health Survey

Articles from Quality in Health Care : QHC are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group