4.5 Article

Reliability and Validity of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12 Version 2 (SF-12v2) in Adults with Non-Cancer Pain

Journal

HEALTHCARE
Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare5020022

Keywords

non-cancer pain; SF12-v2; reliability; validity; psychometric properties

Funding

  1. Translational Training in Addiction [1T32 DA 022981]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Limited evidence exists on how non-cancer pain (NCP) affects an individual's health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to validate the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12 Version 2 (SF-12v2), a generic measure of HRQoL, in a NCP cohort using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Longitudinal Files. The SF Mental Component Summary (MCS12) and SF Physical Component Summary (PCS12) were tested for reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability) and validity (construct: convergent and discriminant; criterion: concurrent and predictive). A total of 15,716 patients with NCP were included in the final analysis. The MCS12 and PCS12 demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha and Mosier's alpha > 0.8), and moderate and high test-retest reliability, respectively (MCS12 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.64; PCS12 ICC: 0.73). Both scales were significantly associated with a number of chronic conditions (p < 0.05). The PCS12 was strongly correlated with perceived health (r = 0.52) but weakly correlated with perceived mental health (r = 0.25). The MCS12 was moderately correlated with perceived mental health (r = 0.42) and perceived health (r = 0.33). Increasing PCS12 and MCS12 scores were significantly associated with lower odds of reporting future physical and cognitive limitations (PCS12: OR = 0.90 95% CI: 0.89-0.90, MCS12: OR = 0.94 95% CI: 0.93-0.94). In summary, the SF-12v2 is a reliable and valid measure of HRQoL for patients with NCP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available