Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 1996 Apr;50(2):202–206. doi: 10.1136/jech.50.2.202

A comparison of three measures of perceived distress: results from a study of angina patients in general practice in Northern Ireland.

C O'Neill 1, C Normand 1, M Cupples 1, A McKnight 1
PMCID: PMC1060253  PMID: 8762389

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish the effect of health education on the level of distress felt by patients with angina and to compare the results obtained using different measures. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial of personal health education given every four months. SETTING: Eighteen general practices in the greater Belfast area. SUBJECTS: These comprised 688 patients aged less than 75 years and known to have had angina for at least six months: 342 were randomised to receive education and 346 no education. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: These were the Nottingham health profile (NHP), functional limitation profile (FLP), and a simple categorical scale (SCS). RESULTS: The intervention group showed a statistically significant improvement in health relative to the control group in terms of physical mobility and social isolation using the NHP. In terms of overall wellbeing, both the NHP and SCS results showed the intervention group had experienced statistically significant improvements in health relative to the control group. Results obtained using the NHP, FLP, and SCS were found to be correlated regardless of whether weighted or unweighted scores were used. CONCLUSION: The intervention produced a significant improvement in health status. Results from different survey instruments were correlated using both weighted and unweighted scores. An SCS was capable of detecting the improvement in health status.

Full text

PDF
202

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bergner M., Bobbitt R. A., Carter W. B., Gilson B. S. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981 Aug;19(8):787–805. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198108000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergner M., Bobbitt R. A., Kressel S., Pollard W. E., Gilson B. S., Morris J. R. The sickness impact profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int J Health Serv. 1976;6(3):393–415. doi: 10.2190/RHE0-GGH4-410W-LA17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cupples M. E., McKnight A. Randomised controlled trial of health promotion in general practice for patients at high cardiovascular risk. BMJ. 1994 Oct 15;309(6960):993–996. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6960.993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. De Haan R., Horn J., Limburg M., Van Der Meulen J., Bossuyt P. A comparison of five stroke scales with measures of disability, handicap, and quality of life. Stroke. 1993 Aug;24(8):1178–1181. doi: 10.1161/01.str.24.8.1178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hunt S. M., McEwen J., McKenna S. P. Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1985 Apr;35(273):185–188. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kaplan R. M., Bush J. W., Berry C. C. Health status index: category rating versus magnitude estimation for measuring levels of well-being. Med Care. 1979 May;17(5):501–525. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Nord E. An alternative to QALYs: the saved young life equivalent (SAVE) BMJ. 1992 Oct 10;305(6858):875–877. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6858.875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. O'Boyle C. A., McGee H., Hickey A., O'Malley K., Joyce C. R. Individual quality of life in patients undergoing hip replacement. Lancet. 1992 May 2;339(8801):1088–1091. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)90673-q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. O'Brien B. J., Buxton M. J., Patterson D. L. Relationship between functional status and health-related quality-of-life after myocardial infarction. Med Care. 1993 Oct;31(10):950–955. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199310000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Patrick D. L., Sittampalam Y., Somerville S. M., Carter W. B., Bergner M. A cross-cultural comparison of health status values. Am J Public Health. 1985 Dec;75(12):1402–1407. doi: 10.2105/ajph.75.12.1402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Somerville S. M., Silver R., Patrick D. L. Services for disabled people; what criteria should we use to assess disability? Community Med. 1983 Nov;5(4):302–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Vickrey B. G., Hays R. D., Graber J., Rausch R., Engel J., Jr, Brook R. H. A health-related quality of life instrument for patients evaluated for epilepsy surgery. Med Care. 1992 Apr;30(4):299–319. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199204000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Visser M. C., Fletcher A. E., Parr G., Simpson A., Bulpitt C. J. A comparison of three quality of life instruments in subjects with angina pectoris: the Sickness Impact Profile, the Nottingham Health Profile, and the Quality of Well Being Scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Feb;47(2):157–163. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90020-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES