Shahriar Jim, Delate Thomas, Hays Ron D, Coons Stephen Joel
Quality Programs, Health Care Services, Blue Shield of California, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Jul 9;1:25. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-25.
The purpose was to compare and comment on use of the SF-36 and MOS-HIV instruments in studies of persons with HIV disease. Three medical information databases were searched to identify examples of HIV studies that included the MOS-HIV or SF-36. Thirty-nine and 14 published articles were identified for illustration in comparing the use of the MOS-HIV and SF-36 in HIV disease, respectively. Support for the reliability and construct validity of the MOS-HIV and SF-36 was found. Ceiling and floor effects were reported for both the MOS-HIV and SF-36; however, ceiling effects were more common for the MOS-HIV, in part due to fewer items in the physical, social, and role functioning domains. The MOS-HIV measures three domains hypothesized to be associated with the health deterioration of HIV disease not measured by the SF-36; however, these domains may not assess aspects of HIV disease that typify the majority of the persons with HIV disease today. National norms for the U.S. adult population (and other nations) are available for the SF-36. In addition, the SF-36 has been used in a wide variety of patient populations, enabling comparisons of HIV-infected persons with persons with other health conditions. No national norms for the MOS-HIV are available. We conclude that there is currently insufficient evidence in the literature to recommend the use of the MOS-HIV over the SF-36 in HIV-infected persons. Although the SF-36 is not targeted at HIV, it may be preferable to use the SF-36 over the MOS-HIV due to fewer ceiling effects, availability of national norms, and the vast amount of data for other populations in the U.S. and around the world. Head-to-head comparisons demonstrating the unique value of the MOS-HIV over the SF-36 are clearly needed. More importantly, additional work needs to be directed at comparing the MOS-HIV and other putatively HIV-targeted instruments to one another to help demarcate aspects of HRQOL that are truly generic versus specific to HIV disease. Using both a generic and targeted HRQOL measure is a good general strategy, but this has not been a typical practice in studies of HIV because the MOS-HIV is so similar in content to the SF-36.
目的是比较和评论SF-36和MOS-HIV工具在HIV疾病患者研究中的应用。检索了三个医学信息数据库,以找出包含MOS-HIV或SF-36的HIV研究实例。分别确定了39篇和14篇已发表文章,用于说明在HIV疾病中MOS-HIV和SF-36的使用情况。发现了对MOS-HIV和SF-36可靠性和结构效度的支持。报告了MOS-HIV和SF-36的天花板效应和地板效应;然而,MOS-HIV的天花板效应更常见,部分原因是身体、社会和角色功能领域的条目较少。MOS-HIV测量了三个假设与HIV疾病健康恶化相关的领域,而SF-36未测量这些领域;然而,这些领域可能无法评估当今大多数HIV疾病患者的HIV疾病方面。SF-36有美国成年人群(及其他国家)的全国常模。此外,SF-36已在广泛的患者群体中使用,能够将HIV感染者与其他健康状况的人进行比较。MOS-HIV没有全国常模。我们得出结论,目前文献中没有足够的证据推荐在HIV感染者中使用MOS-HIV而非SF-36。虽然SF-36并非针对HIV,但由于天花板效应较少、有全国常模以及美国和世界各地其他人群的大量数据,使用SF-36可能比使用MOS-HIV更可取。显然需要进行直接比较,以证明MOS-HIV相对于SF-36的独特价值。更重要的是,需要开展更多工作,将MOS-HIV与其他假定针对HIV的工具相互比较,以帮助区分健康相关生活质量中真正通用的方面与HIV疾病特有的方面。同时使用通用和针对性的健康相关生活质量测量方法是一个很好的总体策略,但这在HIV研究中并非典型做法,因为MOS-HIV在内容上与SF-36非常相似。