Chen A L, Broadhead W E, Doe E A, Broyles W K
Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Fam Med. 1993 Sep;25(8):536-9.
The Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey (MOS-SF) and the Duke Health Profile (DUKE) are brief, reliable, valid, and practical health status measures with potential applications in clinical research. We compared patient acceptance, ease of completion, and adequacy of capture (of the patient's self-perception of health) of these instruments in a primary care setting.
The MOS-SF, DUKE, and assessment questionnaires were administered to 79 patients in a university-based family practice. Patient acceptance of each instrument was assessed with Likert scale questions. Patients then compared the two instruments for relative ease of completion, preference, and completeness of capture.
Both forms assessed each item well, but the DUKE scored statistically significantly better than the MOS-SF on four of six patient acceptance questions and both ease of completion items. There were no significant differences for capture items.
Although both instruments are well accepted, investigators may favor the DUKE over the MOS-SF for situations in which patient acceptance or ease of completion is a key issue.
医学结果研究简明健康调查（MOS-SF）和杜克健康状况问卷（DUKE）是简短、可靠、有效且实用的健康状况测量工具，在临床研究中具有潜在应用价值。我们在初级保健环境中比较了患者对这些工具的接受程度、填写的难易程度以及（对患者健康自我认知的）捕捉充分性。
在一所大学附属医院的家庭医疗科室，对79名患者进行了MOS-SF、DUKE及评估问卷的调查。通过李克特量表问题评估患者对每种工具的接受程度。然后，患者比较这两种工具在填写的相对难易程度、偏好程度以及捕捉完整性方面的差异。
两种问卷对各项内容的评估效果均良好，但在六个患者接受程度问题中的四个以及两个填写难易程度项目上，DUKE在统计学上的得分显著高于MOS-SF。在捕捉项目方面，二者无显著差异。
尽管两种工具都被广泛接受，但在患者接受程度或填写难易程度是关键问题的情况下，研究者可能更倾向于使用DUKE而非MOS-SF。
