Affiliations: [a] Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Sisli Etfal Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey | [b] Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Figen Yilmaz, Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Sisli Etfal Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. Tel.: +90 212 373 5133; E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: Purpose:To compare responsiveness Short Form-36 (SF-36), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), and QUALEFFO-41 scales in patients diagnosed with osteoporosis. Methods:A number of 70 osteoporosis patients who were in their menopause period at least for three years were enrolled in our study. The patients completed Short Form-36 (SF-36), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), and QUALEFFO-41 scales during pretreatment period and one year after the termination of the treatment. Reponsiveness was compared between questionnaires using standardized responsiveness mean (SRM), the effect size (ES), and Guyatt’s method. Results:All scales revealed statistically significant improvement after the treatment. Upon this finding, calculations related with responsiveness indices for SF-36 (Physical Health and Mental Health), NHP (Total point), and QUALEFFO-41 (Total point) demonstrated highly responsive. ES=1.67 and 1.55, SRM=1.55 and 1.85, Guyatt value=2.20 and 1.91 for SF-36 Physical Health and Mental Health. ES=1.35, SRM=1.35, Guyatt value=1.72 for NHP. QUALEFFO-41’s ES=2.56, SRM=4.32 and Guyatt value=2.31. Conclusion:Osteoporosis specific scale as QUALEFFO-41, gives more specific information about the quality of life of osteoporotic patients. If patients with osteoporosis will be compared with other diseases regarding quality of life, then SF-36, one scale was used to evaluate general quality life of such patients, should be preferred against NHP.
Keywords: Osteoporosis, Short Form-36, Nottingham Health Profile, QUALEFFO-41, quality of life scales
