Skip to main content
PMC home page
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases logoLink to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
. 2004 Dec;63(12):1655–1658. doi: 10.1136/ard.2003.014522

Sensitivity to change of AIMS2 and AIMS2-SF components in comparison to M-HAQ and VAS-pain

E Taal 1, J Rasker 1, R Riemsma 1
PMCID: PMC1754846  PMID: 15547091

Abstract

Objective: To examine sensitivity to change of Dutch versions of AIMS2 (arthritis impact measurement scales–2) and AIMS2-SF (short form) components, in comparison with M-HAQ (modified health assessment questionnaire) and the 100 mm visual analogue scale for pain (VAS-pain) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods: 218 patients participated in a study on patient education. Participants completed the Dutch AIMS2, M-HAQ, and VAS-pain at baseline and after one year; 165 completed both assessments. The education programme did not have any effect on health status. Patients were classified according to change over one year in their responses to the AIMS2 question about general health perception: improved health (n = 32), no change (n = 101), and poorer health (n = 32). Changes in scores over one year were tested with paired t tests, and standardised response means were calculated for AIMS2 and AIMS2-SF components, M-HAQ total score, and VAS-pain in the three classifications of change in health perception.

Results: AIMS2 and AIMS2-SF physical, symptom, and affect components showed similar sensitivity to change. The physical and symptom components performed better than M-HAQ and VAS-pain. AIMS2 and AIMS2-SF social interaction and role components were not sensitive to changes in general health perception. The role component was only applicable in 63 patients, because the others were unemployed, disabled, or retired.

Conclusions: AIMS2-SF is a good alternative to the AIMS2 long form for the assessment of health status in rheumatoid arthritis, and is preferable to M-HAQ and VAS-pain. Use of the AIMS2-SF makes it easier and less costly to collect data and reduces the burden on patients.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (60.0 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Anderson J. J., O'Neill A., Woodworth T., Haddad J., Sewell K. L., Moreland L. W. Health status response of rheumatoid arthritis to treatment with DAB486IL-2. Arthritis Care Res. 1996 Apr;9(2):112–119. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199604)9:2<112::aid-anr1790090207>3.0.co;2-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Archenholtz B., Bjelle A. Reliability, validity, and sensitivity of a Swedish version of the revised and expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS2). J Rheumatol. 1997 Jul;24(7):1370–1377. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett F. C., Edworthy S. M., Bloch D. A., McShane D. J., Fries J. F., Cooper N. S., Healey L. A., Kaplan S. R., Liang M. H., Luthra H. S. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988 Mar;31(3):315–324. doi: 10.1002/art.1780310302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaton D. E., Hogg-Johnson S., Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Jan;50(1):79–93. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00296-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bellamy N., Campbell J., Syrotuik J. Comparative study of self-rating pain scales in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Curr Med Res Opin. 1999;15(2):121–127. doi: 10.1185/03007999909113372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Guillemin F., Coste J., Pouchot J., Ghézail M., Bregeon C., Sany J. The AIMS2-SF: a short form of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2. French Quality of Life in Rheumatology Group. Arthritis Rheum. 1997 Jul;40(7):1267–1274. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199707)40:7<1267::AID-ART11>3.0.CO;2-L. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Haavardsholm E. A., Kvien T. K., Uhlig T., Smedstad L. M., Guillemin F. A comparison of agreement and sensitivity to change between AIMS2 and a short form of AIMS2 (AIMS2-SF) in more than 1,000 rheumatoid arthritis patients. J Rheumatol. 2000 Dec;27(12):2810–2816. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Meenan R. F., Mason J. H., Anderson J. J., Guccione A. A., Kazis L. E. AIMS2. The content and properties of a revised and expanded Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales Health Status Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum. 1992 Jan;35(1):1–10. doi: 10.1002/art.1780350102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Pincus T., Callahan L. F., Brooks R. H., Fuchs H. A., Olsen N. J., Kaye J. J. Self-report questionnaire scores in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional physical, radiographic, and laboratory measures. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Feb 15;110(4):259–266. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-110-4-259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Pouchot J., Guillemin F., Coste J., Brégeon C., Sany J. Validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change of a French version of the arthritis impact measurement scales 2 (AIMS2) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with methotrexate. J Rheumatol. 1996 Jan;23(1):52–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ren X. S., Kazis L., Meenan R. F. Short-form Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2: tests of reliability and validity among patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 1999 Jun;12(3):163–171. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199906)12:3<163::aid-art3>3.0.co;2-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Riemsma R. P., Taal E., Rasker J. J., Houtman P. M., Van Paassen H. C., Wiegman O. Evaluation of a Dutch version of the AIMS2 for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1996 Aug;35(8):755–760. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/35.8.755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Riemsma Robert P., Taal Erik, Rasker Johannes J. Group education for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and their partners. Arthritis Rheum. 2003 Aug 15;49(4):556–566. doi: 10.1002/art.11207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Serrano M. A., Beltrán Fabregat J., Olmedo Garzón J. Should the MHAQ ever be used? Ann Rheum Dis. 1996 Apr;55(4):271–272. doi: 10.1136/ard.55.4.271-b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Stucki G., Stucki S., Brühlmann P., Michel B. A. Ceiling effects of the Health Assessment Questionnaire and its modified version in some ambulatory rheumatoid arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 1995 Jun;54(6):461–465. doi: 10.1136/ard.54.6.461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Taal E., Rasker J. J., Riemsma R. P. Psychometric properties of a Dutch short form of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 (Dutch-AIMS2-SF). Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003 Mar;42(3):427–434. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keg133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Taal E., Riemsma R. P., Brus H. L., Seydel E. R., Rasker J. J., Wiegman O. Group education for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Patient Educ Couns. 1993 May;20(2-3):177–187. doi: 10.1016/0738-3991(93)90131-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wolfe F. Which HAQ is best? A comparison of the HAQ, MHAQ and RA-HAQ, a difficult 8 item HAQ (DHAQ), and a rescored 20 item HAQ (HAQ20): analyses in 2,491 rheumatoid arthritis patients following leflunomide initiation. J Rheumatol. 2001 May;28(5):982–989. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES