12 Item Short Form Survey

Question 1

Objective

Answer 1

• Self-reported outcome measure assessing the impact of health on an individuals everyday life.
• Often used as a quality of life measure.
• Shortened version of its predecessor, the SF-36, which itself evolved from the Medical Outcomes Study.
• The SF-12 was created to reduce the burden of response.
• The SF-12 uses the exact eight domains as the SF-36:
  1. Limitations in physical activities because of health problems.
  2. Limitations in social activities because of physical or emotional problems.
  3. Limitations in usual role activities because of physical health problems.
  4. Bodily pain.
  5. General mental health (psychological distress and well-being)
  6. Limitations in usual role activities because of emotional problems.
  7. Vitality (energy and fatigue).
  8. General health perceptions.

Question 2

Intended Population

Answer 2

• Designed as a general measure of health so can be used with the general population.

Question 3

Method of Use

Answer 3

• Patients fills out a 12-question survey which is then scored by a clinician.
  1. Survey administration – patients are provided with the SF-12 questionnaire, which consists of 12 questions covering physical and mental health domains.
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. Interpretation of Scores – utilise 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 concerns or improvement.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

Question 4

Validity

Answer 4

• 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.
• Compared the SF-12 to the SF-36 in treatments for congestive heart failure, sleep apnoea, and inguinal hernia, 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.

Question 5

Responsiveness

Answer 5

• Has been shown to reflect change over time like the SF-36.

Question 6

Miscellaneous

Answer 6

• 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.