Dataset Information

The Swedish RAND-36: psychometric characteristics and reference data from the Mid-Swed Health Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study aims to evaluate data quality, scaling properties, and reliability of the Swedish RAND-36 in a general population sample and to present reference data for the Swedish population.

Methods

Testing of data quality, scaling assumptions and reliability followed methods recommended for the International Quality of Life Assessment Project, previously used for psychometric testing of SF-36 and RAND-36. Data were collected via regular mail for a random stratified sample of the general population in a Swedish county. Weighted means for RAND-36 scores were used and differences by sex, age, education, and occupational groups were tested.

Results

The response rate was 42%, and the sample comprised 3432 persons (45% men, 55% women) with a median age of 56.9 years. The internal consistency reliability was satisfactory, with Cronbach's alphas > 0.80 for all eight scales. The percentage of missing items was low, ranging between 1.3% and 3.2%. No floor effects (≥15%) were noted, while ceiling effects were observed for physical functioning, role-functioning/physical, pain, role-functioning/emotional, and social functioning. Item-scale correlations were satisfactory (r ≥ 0.40). Correlations among the physical health scales were strong (range 0.58-0.68) as were the correlations among the mental health scales (range 0.58-0.73). Men reported significantly better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on all scales, although the gender differences were small. Comparisons among age groups showed approximately equal scores among those 20-29, 30-39, and 40-49 years, while significant decreases in physical health were observed in the older age groups. Substantially worse physical health scores were observed in the oldest age group (80+). Significant differences among age groups were noted also for the mental health scales; however, better energy/fatigue and emotional well-being scores were seen in the older age groups, except for the oldest (80+). Those with university education reported significantly better scores on all scales compared to those with mandatory education.

Conclusions

The study suggests that the Swedish version of RAND-36 is an acceptable and reliable instrument for measuring HRQoL in the general population. The study provides reference data that can be used for norm-based comparisons.

SUBMITTER: Ohlsson-Nevo E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8339183 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe translated and culturally adapted German version of the Veterans Rand 36 Items Health Survey (VR-36), and its short form, the VR-12 counterpart, were validated in a German sample of orthopedic (n = 399) and psychosomatic (n = 292) inpatient rehabilitation patients.MethodsThe instruments were analyzed regarding their acceptance, distributional properties, validity, responsiveness and ability to discriminate between groups by age, sex and clinically specific groups. Eligible study participants completed the VR-36 (n = 169) and the VR-12 (n = 177). They also completed validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) including the Euroqol-5 Dimensions 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS); Hannover Functional Abilities Questionnaire (HFAQ); and CDC Healthy Days. The VR-12 and the VR-36 were compared to the reference instruments MOS Short Form-12 Items Health Survey (SF-12) version 1.0 and MOS Short Form-36 Items Health Survey (SF-36) version 1.0, using percent of completed items, distributional properties, correlation patterns, distribution measures of known groups validity, and effect size measures.ResultsItem non-response varied between 1.8%/1.1% (SFVR-36/RESF-36) and 6.5%/8.6% (GHVR-36/GHSF-36). PCS was normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests: p > 0.05) with means, standard deviations and ranges very similar between SF-36 (37.5 ± 11.7 [13.8-66.1]) and VR-36 (38.5 ± 10.1 [11.7-67.8]), SF-12 (36.9 ± 10.9 [15.5-61.6]) and VR-12 (36.2 ± 11.5 [12.7-59.3]). MCS was not normally distributed with slightly differing means and ranges between the instruments (MCSVR-36: 36.2 ± 14.2 [12.9-66.6], MCSSF-36: 39.0 ± 15.6 [2.0-73.2], MCSVR-12: 37.2 ± 13.8 [8.4-70.2], MCSSF-12: 39.0 ± 12.3 [17.6-65.4]). Construct validity was established by comparing correlation patterns of the MCSVR and PCSVR with measures of physical and mental health. For both PCSVR and MCSVR there were moderate (≥ 0.3) to high (≥ 0.5) correlations with convergent (PCSVR: 0.55-0.76, MCSVR: 0.60-0.78) and small correlations (< 0.1) with divergent (PCSVR: < 0.12, MCSVR: < 0.16) self-report measures. Known-groups validity was demonstrated for both VR-12 and VR-36 (MCS and PCS) via comparisons of distribution parameters with significant higher mean PCS and MCS scores in both VR instruments found in younger patients with fewer sick days in the last year and a shorter duration of rehabilitation.ConclusionsThe psychometric analysis confirmed that the German VR is a valid and reliable instrument for use in orthopedic and psychosomatic rehabilitation. Yet further research is needed to evaluate its usefulness in other populations.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining increased interest in developing health care quality and are a useful tool in person-centered care, their use in routine care is still limited. The aim of this study is to describe the implementation and initial results of PROMs via the Swedish Renal Registry (SRR) on a national level.MethodsAfter testing and piloting the electronic PROM application, nationwide measures were carried out in 2017 for completing the RAND-36 questionnaire online or by paper in a wide range of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients (Stages 3-5, dialysis and transplantation) through the SRR. Cross-sectional results during the first year were analyzed by descriptive statistics and stratified by treatment modality.ResultsA total of 1378 patients from 26 of 68 renal units (39%) completed the questionnaire. The response rate for all participating hemodialysis units was 38.9%. The CKD patients had an impaired health profile compared with a Swedish general population, especially regarding physical functions and assessed general health (GH). Transplanted patients had the highest scores, whereas patients on dialysis treatment had the lowest scores. The youngest age group assessed their physical function higher and experienced fewer physical limitations and less bodily pain than the other age groups but assessed their GH and vitality (VT) relatively low. The oldest age group demonstrated the lowest health profile but rated their mental health higher than the other age groups. The older the patient, the smaller the difference compared with persons of the same age in the general population.ConclusionsNationwide, routine collection of PROMs is feasible in Sweden. However, greater emphasis is needed on motivating clinical staff to embrace the tool and its possibilities in executing person-centered care. CKD patients demonstrate impaired health-related quality of life, especially regarding limitations related to physical problems, GH and VT/energy/fatigue.