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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle


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
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000



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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this