Sickness Impact Profile (SIP)

Original Editor - Tolulope Adeniji

Top Contributors - Tolulope Adeniji and Kim Jackson  

Objective[edit | edit source]

The Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), a behaviorally-based measure of health status, is used to assess a person's perception of their health status with respect to their disease impact. It is sensitive enough to monitor changes in health status over time or between groups[1]. Also, it is used to evaluate effect of diseases on physical and emotional functioning. SIP aids through evaluating outcome of an health care services that can be used for a program evaluation, planning and policy formulation[1][2].

Intended Population[edit | edit source]

SIP is a generic measure questionnaire that can used to evaluate a wide range of conditions and populations[3]. This paper will shed light on its use and psychometric properties among older adults

Method of Use[edit | edit source]

SIP is a generic paper and pencil based questionnaire designed to assess a broad measure of health status. This assessment is based on the yes or no response of the test taker to the questionnaire items. The time taken to complete the SIP test is 20 to 30 minutes[4] . And the major domain on this tool are physical and psychosocial domain. It has 12 categories including sleep and rest, eating, work, home management, recreation and pastimes, ambulation, mobility, body care and movement, social interaction, alertness behavior, emotional behavior, and communication[5]. The tool has 136 items with a yes or no response from the test user, see Figure 1. The overall maximum score for this test is 100 per cent with a zero represents a good health status without physical or behavioral changes due to illness, while the 100 represents a poor health status or a major impact of illness on behaviour.[6].

Figure 1

Evidence among older adults[edit | edit source]

SIP Validity and Reliability[edit | edit source]

The psychometric properties of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) are not well established in the literature. However, Rothman et al.[7] noted that SIP is a valid and reliable tool for nursing home residents and has a comprehensive assessment of their physical function. Nevertheless, the data on the reliability and validity of Rothman et al.[7], is not freely available for reference,

Reliability[edit | edit source]

In the general population, a review paper[6] found that SIP had good internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from 0.91 to 0.95 for the overall score, 0.84–0.93 for the 2 subscales, and 0.60–0.90 for the 12 categories. It has also been reported that there is good test-retest reliability between the 2 administrations, ranging from 0.88 to 0.92 for the overall score. And the test-retest correlation for the interviewer-managed version was 0.97 and 0.87 for the self-completed version, respectively. Interrater reliability (between Kappa raters) was 0.87.

Validity[edit | edit source]

SIP has a good concurrent validity in the general population when its performance is correlated with the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales(AIMS) (there are strong correlations between SIP and AIMS (0.83) and AIMS2 (0.73))[6]. Good construct validity was also reported when individual items and subscales were correlated with other measures ( e.g., Katz 's Daily Living Activity Index, Barthel Index, Carroll 's Depression Rating Scale, and Geriatric Depression Scale)[6].

Responsiveness/Sensitivity to Change[edit | edit source]

Good responsiveness has been reported when SIP was used to evaluate patients with rheumatoid athritis and some other musculoskeletal injuries[6].

References[edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Medical care. 1981 Aug 1:787-805.
  2. Prcic A, Aganovic D, Hadziosmanovic O. Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) Score, a good alternative instrument for measuring quality of life in patients with ileal urinary diversions. Acta Informatica Medica. 2013;21(3):160.
  3. Smelser NJ, Baltes PB, editors. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2001 Nov 1.
  4. Clarke AE, Panopalis P. 4 Quality of Life and Economic Aspects. Systemic Lupus Erythematosus E-Book: A Companion to Rheumatology. 2007 Jan 1:32.
  5. Thornton DR, Argoff CE. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS AND TREATMENT INTERVENTIONS. Pain Management Secrets E-Book. 2009 Jul 31:328.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Carr A. Adult measures of quality of life: The Arthritis impact measurement scales (AIMS/AIMS2), disease repercussion Profile (DRP), EuroQoL, Nottingham health Profile (NHP), patient generated index (PGI), quality of well‐being scale (QWB), RAQoL, short form‐36 (SF‐36), sickness impact Profile (SIP), SIP‐RA, and World Health Organization's quality of life instruments (WHOQoL, WHOQoL‐100, WHOQoL‐Bref). Arthritis Care & Research: Official Journal of the American College of Rheumatology. 2003 Oct 15;49(S5):S113-33.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Rothman ML, Hedrick S, Inui T. The Sickness Impact Profile as a measure of the health status of noncognitively impaired nursing home residents. Medical care. 1989 Mar 1:S157-67.