Disease relevance of Sickness Impact Profile

• The employment status and health status of 203 adult liver transplant recipients was assessed retrospectively in a survey comprising an employment questionnaire, the Sickness Impact Profile (SID), and the Medical Outcomes Survey (MOS) [1].
• Psychometric approaches, such as the Sickness Impact Profile and the Kidney Disease Questionnaire, have been shown to be responsive to change in some clinical studies [2].
• Assessing health-related quality of life in chronic hepatitis C using the Sickness Impact Profile [3].
• The standard Sickness Impact Profile performed well and is recommended for evaluation of day-to-day functioning in head injury studies [4].
• Comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire with the Short Form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness Impact Profile health-status measures [5].

Psychiatry related information on Sickness Impact Profile

• Overall health, measured by the Sickness Impact Profile, improved significantly only in the T group [6].
• Fifty-three nonalcoholic patients were evaluated prior to liver transplantation and again approximately 3 years after surgery using the Sickness Impact Profile and Social Behavior Adjustment Schedule [7].
• MEASURES: Extent of general and specific sexual problems; anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HAD]); pain self-efficacy; pain-related disability (Sickness Impact Profile); drug use [8].
• Correlations with a baseline functional scale (the Sickness Impact Profile) were stronger than those with the MMPI [9].
• Two independent patient self-assessment scores, the Sickness Impact Profile and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, showed improvements from 6.8 to 5.4 and 49 to 38, respectively (both p less than .05), suggesting that the patients reported an improvement in daily functioning [10].

High impact information on Sickness Impact Profile

• Compared with the FV group, the PT group experienced no significant improvements in overall Physical Disability Index, Sickness Impact Profile, or activities of daily living scores [11].
• METHODS:The Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Short Form 36 (SF-36), Rating Form of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Patient Concerns (RFIPC), and the time trade-off (TTO) were used to measure HRQL of pull-through patients [12].
• METHODS: The authors prospectively studied 96 patients with ALS using several instruments, including the McGill Quality of Life (MQOL) instrument, the Idler Index of Religiosity, the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP)/ALS-19, and several measures of strength and physical function [13].
• We found the largest differences in frequencies of symptoms of disequilibrium, difficulties with speech or swallowing, the Timed Walking Test, and the body care and movement subscale of the Sickness Impact Profile. Except for disequilibrium (p = 0.04), these differences did not reach statistical significance [14].
• Relationship of the Tufts Quantitative Neuromuscular Exam (TQNE) and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) in measuring progression of ALS. SSNJV/CNTF ALS Study Group [15].

Biological context of Sickness Impact Profile

• The Medical Outcome Study Short Form with 36 items, the Sickness Impact Profile and the Nottingham Health Profile were identified as the most frequently used measures in neurology [16].
• RESULTS: The percentage of patients judged to be improved at 4 months after cataract surgery varied by the outcome measure used: Snellen visual acuity (96%); VF-14 score (89%); satisfaction with vision (85%); self-reported trouble with vision (80%); and Sickness Impact Profile score (67%) [17].
• Correlation coefficients between the SGRQ total score and the Sickness Impact Profile Total score (a generic health measure), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and 6 min walking distance were 0.69, -0.42 and -0.61 respectively [18].
• RESULTS: The SF-36 took less time to administer than the Sickness Impact Profile in both the Geriatrics Clinic (mean: 15 vs 33 minutes) and General Medicine Clinic (mean: 14 vs 21 minutes) [19].
• We previously demonstrated a significant relationship (P<0.0001) between maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) plus pulmonary function scores (the Tufts Quantitative Neuromuscular Exam Combination Megascore (TQNE CM)), and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) in a cohort of 524 ALS patients [20].

Anatomical context of Sickness Impact Profile

• METHOD: Subjects (n = 30) were measured at home and correlations were calculated between the Upper Limb Activity Monitor and 4 questionnaires; Sickness Impact Profile, RAND-36 Health Survey, Disabilities of Arm Shoulder Hand Questionnaire and Radboud Skills Questionnaire [21].

Associations of Sickness Impact Profile with chemical compounds

• Reduced serum tryptophan was significantly associated with Rotterdam Symptom Checklist physical symptom (r=-0.51, P=0.01) and Sickness Impact Profile (r=-0.42, P=0.04) scores, and correlated with increased serum neopterin (r=-0.36, P=0.003), IL-2 sRalpha (r=-0.51, P=0.01) and sTNF RI (r=-0.45, P=0.02) levels [22].
• MEASUREMENTS: Demographics, time to first fall and all subsequent falls, functional measures, Sickness Impact Profile, Centers for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale, Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale, Falls Efficacy Scales, and adherence to interventions [23].
• Outcomes included two disease-specific (the Oxygen Cost Diagram and the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire [CRQ]) measures, a generic health profile (the Sickness Impact Profile [SIP]), and two utility measures (the Standard Gamble and the Quality of Well-Being index [QWB]) [24].
• Sickness Impact Profile scores were no different between placebo and gabapentin [25].
• Quality of life, assessed by the Sickness Impact Profile questionnaire, was significantly improved in patients receiving OPC-8212 (p less than 0.01) [26].

Gene context of Sickness Impact Profile

• Secondary outcome measures were the rate of deterioration of function assessed by the modified Norris limb and bulbar scales, manual muscle testing (BMRC), spasticity scale, ventilatory function and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP ALS/19) [27].
• MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The MS Self-Efficacy Scale (MSSE), the Expanded Disability Status Scale, the Sickness Impact Profile, and the mastery subscale of the Ryff Happiness Scale [28].
• We studied this feature of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) in a group of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, comparing it with more traditional measures of functional status (the American Rheumatism Association (ARA) functional classification and a patient self-rating scale) [29].
• Quality of life estimates were obtained using the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), and epoetin dosage requirements at target [Hb] were assessed [30].
• Seventy-seven patients with a clinically confirmed diagnosis of HD were interviewed by means of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) [31].

Analytical, diagnostic and therapeutic context of Sickness Impact Profile

• However, both groups reported decreased health-related quality of life in physical functioning, physical ability to maintain their roles (role-physical), bodily pain, general health, and vitality (energy) on the Medical Outcome Study Short Form Health Survey with similar physical limitations reported on the Sickness Impact Profile questionnaire [32].
• This study examined the reliability and validity of the Roland scale (taken from the Sickness Impact Profile: SIP) as a measure of dysfunction among chronic pain patients [33].
• RESULTS: Significant improvements were found in the patients' assessment of pain on visual analog scale, Sickness Impact Profile, self-selected walking speed, and the number of subjects who decreased their medication usage [34].
• MEASUREMENTS: Self-perceived physical function was assessed with the physical dimension summary score of the Sickness Impact Profile, which comprises three subscales: ambulation, mobility, and body care and movement [35].
• OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of a brief 36-item health status measure in elderly male veterans, by comparing it with the 136-item Sickness Impact Profile. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study in which all subjects completed both measures in a random order [19].

References