Background: The Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey (MOS-SF) and the Duke Health Profile (DUKE) are brief, reliable, valid, and practical health status measures with potential applications in clinical research. We compared patient acceptance, ease of completion, and adequacy of capture (of the patient's self-perception of health) of these instruments in a primary care setting.
Methods: The MOS-SF, DUKE, and assessment questionnaires were administered to 79 patients in a university-based family practice. Patient acceptance of each instrument was assessed with Likert scale questions. Patients then compared the two instruments for relative ease of completion, preference, and completeness of capture.
Results: Both forms assessed each item well, but the DUKE scored statistically significantly better than the MOS-SF on four of six patient acceptance questions and both ease of completion items. There were no significant differences for capture items.
Conclusions: Although both instruments are well accepted, investigators may favor the DUKE over the MOS-SF for situations in which patient acceptance or ease of completion is a key issue.