↓ Skip to main content

The validity of the SF-12 and SF-6D instruments in people living with HIV/AIDS in Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The validity of the SF-12 and SF-6D instruments in people living with HIV/AIDS in Kenya
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0708-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anik R. Patel, Richard T. Lester, Carlo A. Marra, Mia L. van der Kop, Paul Ritvo, Lidia Engel, Sarah Karanja, Larry D. Lynd

Abstract

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health state utility value (HSUV) measurements are vital components of healthcare clinical and economic evaluations. Accurate measurement of HSUV and HRQoL require validated instruments. The 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) is one of few instruments that can evaluate both HRQoL and HSUV, but its validity has not been assessed in people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in east Africa, where the burden of HIV is high. This cross-sectional study used baseline data from a randomized trial involving PLWHA in Kenya. Data included responses from a translated and adapted SF-12 survey as well as key demographic and clinical data. Construct validity of the survey was examined by testing the SF-12's ability to distinguish between groups known in advance to have differences in their health based on their disease severity. We classified disease severity based on established definitions from the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) and WHO, as well as a previously studied viral load threshold. T-tests and ANOVA were used to test for differences in HRQoL and HSUV scores. Area under the receive operator curve (AUC) was used to test the discriminative ability of the HRQoL and HSUV instruments. Differences in physical component scores met the minimum clinically important difference among participants with more advanced HIV when defined by CD4 count (4.3 units) and WHO criteria (compared to stage 1, stages 2, 3 and 4 were 2.0, 7.2 and 9.8 units lower respectively). Mental score differences met the minimum clinically important difference between WHO stage 1 and stage 4 patients (4.4). Differences in the HSUV were statistically lower in more advanced HIV by all three definitions of severity. The AUC showed poor to weak discriminatory ability in most analyses, but had fair discriminatory ability between WHO clinical stage 1 and clinical stage 4 individuals (AUC = 0.71). Our findings suggest that the Kiswahili translated and adapted version of the SF-12 could be used as an assessment tool for physical health, mental health and HSUV for Kiswahili-speaking PLHWA. Clinical trials.gov identifier: NCT00830622 . Registered 26 January 2009.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 33 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Psychology 11 12%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 34 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,603,777
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#875
of 2,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,385
of 284,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#16
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.