Comparison of the SF-36 health survey questionnaire with the Nottingham Health Profile in long-term survivors of a myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND Health-related quality of life, an important outcome measure in health interventions, can readily be assessed by questionnaire. Two widely evaluated examples are the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) questionnaires, but as yet the discriminatory power of these tools has not been compared in a large population of patients with coronary heart disease. METHODS All 4-year survivors of a myocardial infarction, identified from the Nottingham heart attack register, were sent the SF-36, NHP and additionally the Rose angina and dyspnoea questionnaires. Mean scores on the SF-36 and NHP were compared with age- and sex-adjusted norms in patients under and over 65 years. Sensitivity of the respective tools was assessed in distinguishing patients with differing degrees of cardiovascular symptomatology. RESULTS In patients under 65 years the SF-36 and NHP differed to the same extent from normative data--scores were lower in the comparable domains physical functioning/mobility, bodily pain/pain and energy/vitality, but not in mental health/emotional reaction scores. In social functioning/social isolation results were disparate--SF-36 scores were lower and the NHP similar to normative data. In patients over 65 years mean scores in all five domains were not significantly different from normative data for either tool. The SF-36 was more sensitive than the NHP at detecting the impact of breathlessness, particularly in patients with mild symptoms. Similarly, the SF-36, but not the NHP, could distinguish the effect of differing degrees of angina severity and frequency on social functioning. CONCLUSION At least in myocardial infarction survivors, the SF-36 appears a more sensitive tool and may have benefits for assessing health-related quality of life in this patient group.