Sickness impact profile score versus a modified short-form survey for functional outcome assessment: Acceptability, reliability, and validity in critically III patients with prolonged intensive care unit stays

Pamela A Lipsett, S. M. Swoboda, K. A. Campbell, E. Cornwell, Todd Dorman, P. J. Pronovost

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Quality of life after surgical critical illness is an important measure of outcome. The Sickness Impact Profile Score (SIP) has been validated in critically ill patients, but the Modified Short-Form (MSF) has not been directly compared with it. Methods: The SIP and MSF-36 were coadministered to 127 patients (surrogates) with a prolonged surgical critical illness at baseline at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Reliability, validity, and acceptability were determined for overall and subscores at each time point. Results: The overall SIP and eight subscores, including physical health and psychosocial health, were all significantly improved at 1 year compared with baseline (p <0.05). However, the MSF-36 was improved only in health perception (p <0.05), but pain scores were higher (p <0.05) than at baseline. Internal consistency of the MSF-36 was poor at 1 and 3 months. Correlation between the tools was excellent at baseline and 1 year but variable in overall and subscores at other time points. Conclusion: The SIP is more comprehensive, reliable, and acceptable in determining specific quality-of-life abnormalities, but the MSF-36 is easier to administer and correlates well at baseline and 1 year patients with a prolonged critical illness.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)737-743
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care
Volume49
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Sickness Impact Profile
Critical Illness
Reproducibility of Results
Intensive Care Units
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Health
Quality of Life
Pain
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Adult
  • Critical illness
  • Function
  • Outcome
  • Quality of life
  • Surgical

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

@article{68b0c927b1e14b69bab7bdaca5ffbc71,
title = "Sickness impact profile score versus a modified short-form survey for functional outcome assessment: Acceptability, reliability, and validity in critically III patients with prolonged intensive care unit stays",
abstract = "Background: Quality of life after surgical critical illness is an important measure of outcome. The Sickness Impact Profile Score (SIP) has been validated in critically ill patients, but the Modified Short-Form (MSF) has not been directly compared with it. Methods: The SIP and MSF-36 were coadministered to 127 patients (surrogates) with a prolonged surgical critical illness at baseline at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Reliability, validity, and acceptability were determined for overall and subscores at each time point. Results: The overall SIP and eight subscores, including physical health and psychosocial health, were all significantly improved at 1 year compared with baseline (p <0.05). However, the MSF-36 was improved only in health perception (p <0.05), but pain scores were higher (p <0.05) than at baseline. Internal consistency of the MSF-36 was poor at 1 and 3 months. Correlation between the tools was excellent at baseline and 1 year but variable in overall and subscores at other time points. Conclusion: The SIP is more comprehensive, reliable, and acceptable in determining specific quality-of-life abnormalities, but the MSF-36 is easier to administer and correlates well at baseline and 1 year patients with a prolonged critical illness.",
keywords = "Adult, Critical illness, Function, Outcome, Quality of life, Surgical",
author = "Lipsett, {Pamela A} and Swoboda, {S. M.} and Campbell, {K. A.} and E. Cornwell and Todd Dorman and Pronovost, {P. J.}",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "49",
pages = "737--743",
journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
issn = "2163-0755",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sickness impact profile score versus a modified short-form survey for functional outcome assessment

T2 - Acceptability, reliability, and validity in critically III patients with prolonged intensive care unit stays

AU - Lipsett, Pamela A

AU - Swoboda, S. M.

AU - Campbell, K. A.

AU - Cornwell, E.

AU - Dorman, Todd

AU - Pronovost, P. J.

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Background: Quality of life after surgical critical illness is an important measure of outcome. The Sickness Impact Profile Score (SIP) has been validated in critically ill patients, but the Modified Short-Form (MSF) has not been directly compared with it. Methods: The SIP and MSF-36 were coadministered to 127 patients (surrogates) with a prolonged surgical critical illness at baseline at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Reliability, validity, and acceptability were determined for overall and subscores at each time point. Results: The overall SIP and eight subscores, including physical health and psychosocial health, were all significantly improved at 1 year compared with baseline (p <0.05). However, the MSF-36 was improved only in health perception (p <0.05), but pain scores were higher (p <0.05) than at baseline. Internal consistency of the MSF-36 was poor at 1 and 3 months. Correlation between the tools was excellent at baseline and 1 year but variable in overall and subscores at other time points. Conclusion: The SIP is more comprehensive, reliable, and acceptable in determining specific quality-of-life abnormalities, but the MSF-36 is easier to administer and correlates well at baseline and 1 year patients with a prolonged critical illness.

AB - Background: Quality of life after surgical critical illness is an important measure of outcome. The Sickness Impact Profile Score (SIP) has been validated in critically ill patients, but the Modified Short-Form (MSF) has not been directly compared with it. Methods: The SIP and MSF-36 were coadministered to 127 patients (surrogates) with a prolonged surgical critical illness at baseline at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Reliability, validity, and acceptability were determined for overall and subscores at each time point. Results: The overall SIP and eight subscores, including physical health and psychosocial health, were all significantly improved at 1 year compared with baseline (p <0.05). However, the MSF-36 was improved only in health perception (p <0.05), but pain scores were higher (p <0.05) than at baseline. Internal consistency of the MSF-36 was poor at 1 and 3 months. Correlation between the tools was excellent at baseline and 1 year but variable in overall and subscores at other time points. Conclusion: The SIP is more comprehensive, reliable, and acceptable in determining specific quality-of-life abnormalities, but the MSF-36 is easier to administer and correlates well at baseline and 1 year patients with a prolonged critical illness.

KW - Adult

KW - Critical illness

KW - Function

KW - Outcome

KW - Quality of life

KW - Surgical

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033770222&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033770222&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11038094

AN - SCOPUS:0033770222

VL - 49

SP - 737

EP - 743

JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

SN - 2163-0755

IS - 4

ER -