Hagen K B, Smedstad L M, Uhlig T, Kvien T K
Health Services Research Unit, National Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
J Rheumatol. 1999 Jul;26(7):1474-80.
To compare the responsiveness of 2 disease-specific questionnaires, the Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ) and the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS2) with corresponding dimensions (physical function, mental health, pain, and fatigue) in a generic health status measure [the MOS Short Form-36)] in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Within the framework of an observational study, a prospective cohort of 595 patients with RA from a community based patient register responded to a questionnaire at baseline and after 2 years' followup. Changes in patient global disease activity assessed on a categorical verbal rating scale (range 1-5) were used as external indicator of improvement or deterioration. Responsiveness was evaluated with standardized response means (SRM), calculated as mean change score divided by the standard deviation of the mean change score.
Changes in patient global disease activity were classified as much better (n = 33), slightly better (n = 108), no change (n = 291), slightly worse (n = 108), and much worse (n = 20). There were no significant differences in responsiveness between SF-36 and the disease-specific measures within the same dimensions of health. The SRM of the tools within the dimension of pain (AIMS2 and SF-36) were moderate (0.5-0.8) to large (> 0.8) consistently in both directions (improvement and deterioration). The physical function subscales detected the same pattern, but the magnitude of the gradients was smaller. The fatigue and mental health subscales did not show any clear and consistent pattern of change.
In patients with RA, there was no difference in responsiveness of subscales from SF-36 and disease-specific instruments when using changes in patient assessed global disease activity as an external indicator of change in health status. The dimension of pain was most sensitive to changes in patient assessed global disease activity followed by physical function, fatigue, and mental health.
比较两种疾病特异性问卷,即改良健康评估问卷(MHAQ)和关节炎影响测量量表(AIMS2),以及它们在类风湿关节炎(RA)患者的一般健康状况测量指标[医学结局研究简明健康调查量表(SF-36)]中相应维度(身体功能、心理健康、疼痛和疲劳)的反应性。
在一项观察性研究的框架内,对来自社区患者登记册的595例RA患者进行前瞻性队列研究,患者在基线和随访2年后回答问卷。采用分类语言评定量表(范围为1-5)评估的患者整体疾病活动度变化作为健康改善或恶化的外部指标。用标准化反应均值(SRM)评估反应性,计算方法为平均变化得分除以平均变化得分的标准差。
患者整体疾病活动度变化分为明显改善(n = 33)、稍有改善(n = 108)、无变化(n = 291)、稍有恶化(n = 108)和明显恶化(n = 20)。在相同健康维度内,SF-36与疾病特异性测量指标的反应性无显著差异。疼痛维度(AIMS2和SF-36)工具的SRM在改善和恶化两个方向上均持续为中等(0.5-0.8)至较大(> 0.8)。身体功能分量表检测到相同模式,但梯度幅度较小。疲劳和心理健康分量表未显示任何明确和一致的变化模式。
在RA患者中,当将患者评估的整体疾病活动度变化作为健康状况变化的外部指标时,SF-36分量表与疾病特异性工具的反应性无差异。疼痛维度对患者评估的整体疾病活动度变化最敏感,其次是身体功能、疲劳和心理健康。