Commentaryon using the SF-36 or MOS-HIV in studies of persons with HIV disease

• Main Authors: Hays Ron D, Delate Thomas, Shahriar Jim, Coons Stephen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2003-07-01
• Series: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
• Online Access: http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/25

<p>Abstract</p> <p>The purposewas to compare and comment on use of the SF-36 and MOS-HIV instrumentsin studies of persons with HIV disease. Three medical informationdatabases were searched to identify examples of HIV studies thatincluded the MOS-HIV or SF-36. Thirty-nine and 14 published articleswere identified for illustration in comparing the use of the MOS-HIVand SF-36 in HIV disease, respectively. Support for the reliabilityand construct validity of the MOS-HIV and SF-36 was found. Ceilingand floor effects were reported for both the MOS-HIV and SF-36;however, ceiling effects were more common for the MOS-HIV, in partdue to fewer items in the physical, social, and role functioningdomains. The MOS-HIV measures three domains hypothesized to be associatedwith the health deterioration of HIV disease not measured by theSF-36; however, these domains may not assess aspects of HIV diseasethat typify the majority of the persons with HIV disease today.National norms for the U.S. adult population (and other nations)are available for the SF-36. In addition, the SF-36 has been usedin a wide variety of patient populations, enabling comparisons ofHIV-infected persons with persons with other health conditions.No national norms for the MOS-HIV are available. We conclude thatthere is currently insufficient evidence in the literature to recommendthe use of the MOS-HIV over the SF-36 in HIV-infected persons. Althoughthe SF-36 is not targeted at HIV, it may be preferable to use theSF-36 over the MOS-HIV due to fewer ceiling effects, availabilityof national norms, and the vast amount of data for other populationsin the U.S. and around the world. Head-to-head comparisons demonstratingthe unique value of the MOS-HIV over the SF-36 are clearly needed.More importantly, additional work needs to be directed at comparingthe MOS-HIV and other putatively HIV-targeted instruments to oneanother to help demarcate aspects of HRQOL that are truly genericversus specific to HIV disease. Using both a generic and targetedHRQOL measure is a good general strategy, but this has not beena typical practice in studies of HIV because the MOS-HIV is so similarin content to the SF-36.</p>