Nottingham Health Profile and Short-Form 36 Health Survey questionnaires in patients with chronic lower limb ischemia: before and after revascularization.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the usefulness of the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and the Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) as general outcome measures after vascular intervention for lower limb ischemia with respect to patients' quality of life, on the basis of validity, reliability, and responsiveness analyses. PATIENTS AD METHODS: Eighty patients, 40 with claudication and 40 with critical ischemia, were assessed before and one month after revascularization by using comparable domains of the NHP and the SF-36 questionnaires.

RESULTS

The SF-36 scores were less skewed and were distributed more homogeneously than the NHP scores. Discriminate validity results showed that NHP was better than SF-36 in discriminating among levels of ischemia with respect to pain and physical mobility. For both questionnaires, the reliability standards were satisfactory in most respects. The NHP was more responsive than the SF-36 in detecting within-patient changes. All of the NHP domains not zero at baseline were improved significantly one month after hemodynamically successful revascularization for patients with claudication, whereas patients with critical ischemia showed significant abatement of pain and improvements in physical mobility and social isolation. The SF-36 scores indicated a significant decrease in bodily pain and improvements in physical functioning and vitality for patients with claudication, and decrease in bodily pain and improvement in physical functioning for patients with critical ischemia.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicated that both NHP and SF-36 were reliable. The SF-36 scores were less skewed than the NHP scores, whereas NHP discriminated better among levels of ischemia and was more responsive in detecting quality-of-life changes over time than SF-36 in these particular patients.