Quality of life after surgical critical illness is an important measure of outcome. The Sickness Impact Profile Score (SIP) has been validated in critically ill patients, but the Modified Short-Form (MSF) has not been directly compared with it.
The SIP and MSF-36 were coadministered to 127 patients (surrogates) with a prolonged surgical critical illness at baseline at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Reliability, validity, and acceptability were determined for overall and subscores at each time point.
The overall SIP and eight subscores, including physical health and psychosocial health, were all significantly improved at 1 year compared with baseline (p
< 0.05). However, the MSF-36 was improved only in health perception (p
< 0.05), but pain scores were higher (p
< 0.05) than at baseline. Internal consistency of the MSF-36 was poor at 1 and 3 months. Correlation between the tools was excellent at baseline and 1 year but variable in overall and subscores at other time points.
The SIP is more comprehensive, reliable, and acceptable in determining specific quality-of-life abnormalities, but the MSF-36 is easier to administer and correlates well at baseline and 1 year in patients with a prolonged critical illness.