Article1998

The SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Measures: An Example of How to Interpret Scores

95 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Health Services Research & Policy

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To provide normative data, in the form of percentile scores from a community sample, for the Physical Component and Mental Health Component Summary scores derived from the SF-36, and to provide an example of how to interpret scores on these measures, comparing normative results with data from a clinical sample. METHOD: Normative data were gained from a postal survey using a questionnaire, containing the SF-36 and a number of other items concerned with lifestyles and illness. The questionnaire was sent to 13,042 randomly selected subjects between the ages of 18 and 64 years, drawn from Family Health Services Authority computerised registers for four English counties. The clinical sample comprised 84 patients aged 18-64 years diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) who were asked to take part in the study. The Physical Component Summary (PCS) score and Mental Health Component Summary (MCS) score gained from the SF-36 health status measure were the outcome measures. RESULTS: The community survey achieved a response rate of 72% (n = 9332). All 84 patients in the age range 18-64 years approached to take part in the OSA study agreed to do so; complete data were available for 60 patients. Results indicated that, prior to treatment, 75% of OSA patients' scores on the PCS/MCS were less than the standardised mean score of 50 and fell in the lowest 34% of scores in the general population. However, after treatment, over 50% of patients scored above the standardised mean score on both the PCS and MCS and more closely mirrored the distribution of the normative sample. CONCLUSION: The data provided here should enable a more meaningful presentation of data than is generally provided in research papers presenting SF-36 summary scores.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 95 citations exist upstream.

References

1992The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.1992The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)1991A New Method for Measuring Daytime Sleepiness: The Epworth Sleepiness Scale 2003SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide 1992Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care.1994The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of Data Quality, Scaling Assumptions, and Reliability Across Diverse Patient Groups 1992Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach 1993Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age.

Cited by

2006Decomposition of sources of income-related health inequality applied on SF-36 summary scores: a Danish health survey 2023Taking Back Control? Quasi-Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Retirement on Locus of Control

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.