Skip to main content
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 2009 Nov 1;100(6):449–452. doi: 10.1007/BF03404342

Health-related Quality of Life in Canadian Adolescents and Young Adults: Normative Data Using the SF-36

Wilma M Hopman 113,213,, Claudie Berger 313, Lawrence Joseph 413, Tanveer Towheed 213,513, Jerilynn C Prior 613, Tassos Anastassiades 513, Suzette Poliquin 713, Wei Zhou 313, Jonathan D Adachi 813, David A Hanley 913, Emmanuel A Papadimitropoulos 1013,1213, Alan Tenenhouse 1113; CaMos Research Group, David Goltzman, Nancy Kreiger, Alan Tenenhouse, Suzette Poliquin 1313, Suzanne Godmaire 1313, Claudie Berger 1313, Wei Zhou 1313, Lawrence Joseph 1313, Carol Joyce 1413, Christopher Kovacs 1413, Emma Sheppard 1413, Susan Kirkland 1513, Stephanie Kaiser 1513, Barbara Stanfield 1513, Jacques P Brown 1613, Louis Bessette 1613, Marc Gendreau 1613, Tassos Anastassiades 1713, Tanveer Towheed 1713, Barbara Matthews 1713, Bob Josse 1813, Sophie Jamal 1813, Tim Murray 1813, Barbara Gardner-Bray 1813, Jonathan D Adachi 1913, Alexandra Papaioannou 1913, Laura Pickard 1913, Wojciech P Olszynski 2013, K Shawn Davison 2013, Jola Thingvold 2013, David A Hanley 2113, Jane Allan 2113, Jerilynn C Prior 2213, Millan Patel 2213, Yvette Vigna 2213
PMCID: PMC5104548  CAMSID: CAMS6245  PMID: 20209739

Abstract

Objectives

Normative data for the SF-36 measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) exist for those over 25 years of age, based on data from the population-based Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). CaMos recently recruited a sample of young Canadians aged between 16 and 24 years. The purpose of this study was to develop normative SF-36 data for this age group.

Methods

After direct standardization to the Canadian population, means, standard deviations (SD), 95% confidence intervals and percentage at floor and ceiling were produced for the eight domain and two summary scores of the SF-36. Domains are scored from 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent). Summary scores are standardized to a mean of 50, with scores over 50 representing better than average and below 50 poorer than average function. Separate analyses were completed for men and women, and for those 16–19 years and 20–24 years.

Results

The 1,001 community-based participants consisted of 474 men and 527 women from nine CaMos centres across Canada. Mean Physical Component Summary scores were 53.9 (SD=6.9) and 53.3 (SD=5.7) for young men and women, respectively. The equivalent Mental Component Summary scores were 49.3 (SD=9.7) and 48.8 (SD=8.9). In general, men scored somewhat higher than women, and younger (16–19 years) women scored higher than older (20–24 years) women, although the differences were small.

Conclusion

HRQOL is good in this cohort of young Canadians. Both men and women scored somewhat better on physically than mentally oriented domains. In general, Canadian scores were similar to those of the US, while a comparable Swedish sample scored higher than both countries on most domains. Results underscore the importance of taking country, age and gender into consideration when using normative data.

Key words: SF-36, normative, adolescents, youth, gender, CaMos, age

Footnotes

Detailed in the appendix

References

  • 1.Ware JE, Jr, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ware JE, Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Summary Scales: A User’s Manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hopman WM, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, Tenenhouse A, Poliquin S, Berger C, et al. Canadian normative data for the SF-36 Health Survey. CMAJ. 2000;163:265–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jorngarden A, Wettergen L, von Essen L. Measuring health-related quality of life in adolescents and young adults: Swedish normative data for the SF-36 and the HADS, and influence of age, gender and method of administration. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:91. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Huebner ES, Valois RF, Suldo SM, Smith LC, McKnight CG, Seligson JL, et al. Perceived quality of life: A neglected component of adolescent health assessment and intervention. J Adolesc Health. 2004;34:270–78. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00285-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Topolski TD, Edwards TC, Patrick DL. Toward youth self-report of health and quality of life in population monitoring. Ambul Pediatr. 2004;4(suppl):387–94. doi: 10.1367/A03-131R.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kreiger N, Tenenhouse A, Joseph L, MacKenzie T, Poliquin S, Brown J, et al. The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos): Background, rationale, methods. Can J Aging. 1999;18:376–87. doi: 10.1017/S0714980800009934. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Joseph L, Reinhold C. Fundamentals of clinical research for radiologists: Statistical inference for continuous variables. AJR. 2005;184:1047–56. doi: 10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES