Skip to main content
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 1998 May;52(5):324–328. doi: 10.1136/jech.52.5.324

The Short-Form 36 and older people: some problems encountered when using postal administration

S Mallinson
PMCID: PMC1756706  PMID: 9764284

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore some of the problems encountered in the postal administration of the Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Questions that seem to present particular difficulties for the group are identified. In addition some of the written comments from the questionnaires and people's responses to questions on how difficult they found the SF-36 are discussed. DESIGN: The study group were asked to complete a health questionnaire containing the SF-36 on three separate occasions (at zero, three, and six months). The first and final questionnaires were interviewer administered during a face to face interview. A shorter questionnaire containing only the SF-36 and another health status measure was sent by post to each patient in the interim. PARTICIPANTS: People aged 65 years or above who were new referrals to community based occupational therapy or physiotherapy services in three areas in north west England. MAIN RESULTS: Response and completion rates for the postal questionnaire were lower than expected, even though all the patients had already had a face to face interview and had therefore completed the SF-36 once. Only 34 of 56 respondents (60.7%) completed all the items on the SF-36. CONCLUSIONS: All those planning to use the SF-36 (and similar measures) with older populations should be sensitive to the problems of postal administration. Non-return of questionnaires, high levels of missing data on those that are received, and ambiguities in response may mean that other measures, or perhaps alternative research methods, are more appropriate.

 

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (83.0 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Andresen E. M., Bowley N., Rothenberg B. M., Panzer R., Katz P. Test-retest performance of a mailed version of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey among older adults. Med Care. 1996 Dec;34(12):1165–1170. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199612000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brazier J. E., Harper R., Jones N. M., O'Cathain A., Thomas K. J., Usherwood T., Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992 Jul 18;305(6846):160–164. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dawson J., Fitzpatrick R., Murray D., Carr A. Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care. 1996 Jun;5(2):81–88. doi: 10.1136/qshc.5.2.81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Donovan J. L., Frankel S. J., Eyles J. D. Assessing the need for health status measures. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993 Apr;47(2):158–162. doi: 10.1136/jech.47.2.158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Garratt A. M., Ruta D. A., Abdalla M. I., Buckingham J. K., Russell I. T. The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? BMJ. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1440–1444. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hayes V., Morris J., Wolfe C., Morgan M. The SF-36 health survey questionnaire: is it suitable for use with older adults? Age Ageing. 1995 Mar;24(2):120–125. doi: 10.1093/ageing/24.2.120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hill S., Harries U., Popay J. Is the short form 36 (SF-36) suitable for routine health outcomes assessment in health care for older people? Evidence from preliminary work in community based health services in England. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996 Feb;50(1):94–98. doi: 10.1136/jech.50.1.94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jenkinson C., Coulter A., Wright L. Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1437–1440. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jenkinson C. Evaluating the efficacy of medical treatment: possibilities and limitations. Soc Sci Med. 1995 Nov;41(10):1395–1401. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00119-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lyons R. A., Perry H. M., Littlepage B. N. Evidence for the validity of the Short-form 36 Questionnaire (SF-36) in an elderly population. Age Ageing. 1994 May;23(3):182–184. doi: 10.1093/ageing/23.3.182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Popay J., Williams G. Public health research and lay knowledge. Soc Sci Med. 1996 Mar;42(5):759–768. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00341-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ware J. E., Jr, Sherbourne C. D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES