“When I saw walking I just kind of took it as wheeling”: interpretations of mobility-related items in generic, preference-based health state instruments in the context of spinal cord injury

Table 1 Comparison of mobility-related aspects of six generic, preference-based health state instruments ^a

	15D	AQoL-8D	EQ-5D-5L	HUI-3	QWB-SA	SF-6D (SF-36v2)^b
Number of items	1 of 15	2 of 35^c	1 of 5	1 of 15	9 of (at least) 71	SF-6D: 3 of 11 SF-36v2: 10 of 36
Name of dimension	Mobility	Independent living	Mobility	Ambulation	Physical functioning	Physical functioning
Number of response options per item	5	6	5	6	4	3
Mention of aids and/or appliances	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No
Mention of human assistance	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No
Time frame reference	Present health status	Past week	Today	Past week	Last three days	A typical day

^a The specific wording of items and response options is provided in Appendix 1
^b Focus group participants were required to consider the 36-item instrument in its entirety, as developers of the SF-6D do not recommended using only the 11 items of the SF-36v2 that comprise the SF-6D
^c Two items were considered to be ‘mobility-related’; item #15 (“mobility”) and item #3 (“getting around”). This follows the approach used by Whitehurst and colleagues [16]

ISSN: 1477-7525