 |
 |
Certainly is a gender difference in the SF36 in the general population - see eg page 144 in "Taking the Pulse: The 1996/7 New Zealand Health Survey" - available in pdf format on www.moh.govt.nz The report has some discussion on it, pointing out similar differences in Australian and US work.
Given the clear male shortfall in health generally most discussion I have seen around this relates to it being either the self-delusion of males that they rate themselves as being healthier than they objectively are, or females being self-deprecating and down-rating themselves. Probably a bit of both? Also might be tied in to eg the drivers for gender differences in using primary care services.
Gary
_________________________________________________________________________
Dr Gary Jackson, Public Health Medicine Specialist Rm 307 Support Building
South Auckland Health, Private Bag 93311, Otahuhu, Auckland
ph 64-9-276 0044 ext 2512 fax 64-9-276 0191 mobile 025 286 1815
email [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Jull [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 11:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: SF36 and gender
Dear list
Price and Harding (1996) used SF36 to assess the QoL of patients with leg
ulceration. They noted that male participants rated themselves as
significantly healthier on some of the sub-scales (physical functioning,
vitality and social functioning) than female participants. Lindholm et al
(1993), had previously investigated participants with leg ulceration using
the Nottingham Health Profile, and found the reverse.
One of my thesis markers has suggested that SF36 and its derivatives has an
inherent gender bias and this could explain the difference. Does anybody
know of any information on gender bias and SF36?
Andrew Jull
Clinical Nurse Consultant
Auckland Hospital
Private Bag 92024
Auckland
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 9 3797440
Fax:+64 9 3072818 (external)
7718 (internal)
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."