12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12)
Original Editor - Evan Thomas
Top Contributors - Lauren Lopez, Uchechukwu Chukwuemeka, Evan Thomas, Kim Jackson, Lucinda hampton and Tolulope Adeniji
Objective[edit | edit source]
The SF-12 is a self-reported outcome measure assessing the impact of health on an individual's everyday life. It is often used as a quality of life measure.
The SF-12 is a shortened version of it's predecessor, the SF-36, which itself evolved from the Medical Outcomes Study[1]. The SF-12 was created to reduce the burden of response[2].
The SF-12 uses the exact eight domains as the SF-36:
- Limitations in physical activities because of health problems.
- Limitations in social activities because of physical or emotional problems
- Limitations in usual role activities because of physical health problems
- Bodily pain
- General mental health (psychological distress and well-being)
- Limitations in usual role activities because of emotional problems
- Vitality (energy and fatigue)
- General health perceptions
Intended Population[edit | edit source]
Like the SF-36, the SF-12 is designed as a general measure of health so can be used with the general population.
Method of Use[edit | edit source]
Patients fill out a 12-question survey which is then scored by a clinician or researcher.
Below are steps on how to use SF-12:[3][4]
- Survey Administration:
- Patients are provided with the SF-12 questionnaire, which consists of 12 questions covering physical and mental health domains.
- Ensure that participants understand the instructions for each question to maintain consistency in responses.
- Informed Consent:
- Obtain informed consent from participants before they begin filling out the SF-12 survey.
- Explain the purpose of the survey, reassure confidentiality, and provide contact information for any questions.
- Scoring Process:
- Once participants complete the survey, a clinician or researcher carefully scores the responses according to the SF-12 scoring algorithm.
- The scoring yields two summary measures: the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS).
- Interpretation of Scores:
- Utilize the norm-based scoring system to interpret PCS and MCS scores, with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 in the general population.
- Scores above 50 indicate a better-than-average health-related quality of life, while scores below 50 suggest below-average health.
- Comparison and Benchmarking:
- Compare individual scores to population norms for benchmarking purposes.
- Identify areas of health that may need attention based on lower scores in specific domains.
- Clinical or Researcher Review:
- Clinicians or researchers review the scores in conjunction with other clinical information to gain a comprehensive understanding of the patient's health status.
- Consideration of individual item responses can offer insights into specific areas of concern or improvement.
- Follow-up and Action Plan:
- Based on the survey results, develop an appropriate action plan for patients, which may include targeted interventions, referrals to specialists, or adjustments to treatment plans.
- Schedule follow-up assessments to track changes in health-related quality of life over time.
- Documentation and Reporting:
- Document SF-12 scores in the patient's medical record or research database.
- Provide a comprehensive report to patients, including a clear explanation of their scores and any recommended actions.
Unlike the SF-36, the SF-12 is not available for free by its authors, due to a scoring programme. Find out more about using this health survey here
Evidence[edit | edit source]
The SF-12 has been tested in a range of disease populations, including mental health, stroke, and myocardial infarction.
Validity[edit | edit source]
When compared to the SF-36 in various patient groups varying in age, physical and mental health, the SF-12 scores were similar to the SF-36 but almost always had bigger standard errors[3].
A separate study[5] compared the SF-12 to the SF-36 in treatments for congestive heart failure, sleep apnoea, and inguinal hernia. The authors found that the SF-12 agreed with the MCS and PCS of the SF-36, noting that the scores recorded the same level of health and changed over time.
A third study of responses from nine European countries also confirmed a correlation between SF-12 and SF-36 component summaries and recommended the SF-12 to be useful for the assessment of large populations[6].
Responsiveness[edit | edit source]
The SF-12 has been shown to reflect change over time like the SF-36[5].
Miscellaneous[edit | edit source]
There are two versions of the SF-12 which have some differences in scoring so it is recommended that users document which version they are using.
Resources[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ Ware J. SF-36 Health Survey Update. Spine. 2000. 25; 24: 3130-3139.
- ↑ Rand Health Care. 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12). Available from: https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/12-item-short-form.html. (Accessed 29 February 2020).
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996. 34; 3:220-33.
- ↑ Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473-483.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Jenkinson C, Layte R, Jenkinson D, Lawrence K, Petersen S, Paice C, Stradling J. A shorter form health survey: can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies? Journal of Public Health. 1997. 19; 2: 179-186. Accessed 29 February 2020.
- ↑ Gandek B, Ware J, Aaronson N, Apolone G, Bjorner J, Brazier J, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L, Sullivan M.. "Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project." Journal of clinical epidemiology. 1998. 51;11: 1171-1178.
