Objectives: Summary physical health scores for the Short Form (SF) measures are computing using positive weights for physical items and negative weights for mental health items. Mental health summary scores use positive weights for mental items and negative weights for physical. The RAND Health Status Inventory (HSI) measures do not use negative weights. Do these different approaches to scoring matter? The objective was to compare summary scores using both the SF and RAND-HSI.

Methods: SF-36 and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) were administered to a cohort of patients waiting for elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). SF-12 and HUI3 were administered to a cohort of high-risk primary-care patients. Summary scores were generated and compared. Single-attribute utility scores for emotion in HUI3 were also computed. Canadian and US norms for SF, RAND-HSI, and HUI3 were used to interpret results.

Results: For THA patients, mean physical health scores were 28 and 36 for SF and RAND-HSI. Mean mental health scores were 55 and 42. For the primary-care patients, the scores were 34 and 36 for physical and 46 and 40 for mental health.

Conclusions: SF and RAND-HSI provided somewhat similar summary scores in the THA study. However, SF and RAND-HSI mental health scores differed in the primary-care patient cohort and results from HUI3 corroborate the mental health deficits identified by the RAND-HSI. It may be wise for investigators to use both SF and RAND-HSI scoring systems.

Objectives: Many hospitals in New Zealand have been using clinical priority assessment criteria (CPAC) to select and prioritize patients for access to publicly funded elective surgery. CPAC usually consist of clinical, patient-experienced, and social measures. The objective of this study was to determine how robust patient rankings were and the extent to which the patients selected were those who benefited the most from surgery.

Methods: Patients prioritized for cataract (n = 101), prostate (n = 103), and hip or knee joint replacement (n = 137) surgery according to CPAC were assessed using the EQ-5D, SF-12, and condition-related patient-experienced health status measures before and after treatment. Correlations between the rankings of patients on the CPACs and the alternative instruments were explored.

Results: For each surgery group, the CPAC ranking of patients was not strongly correlated with rankings obtained using their before-treatment EQ-5D (valued) profiles or the SF-12, although there was some correlation with rankings according to the condition-related measures. Improvements in the health status of patients who were operated on, as measured by the change in their EQ-5D values, were poorly correlated with equivalent changes on the SF-12 and condition-related measures. Patients' baseline health status according to the CPAC, the EQ-5D, and the SF-12 patient-experienced measures was only slightly related to the magnitude of benefit following surgery. The strongest predictors of improvement in health status were the baseline condition-related measures.

Conclusions: The current method of prioritizing patients in New Zealand requires reconsideration, although a gold standard method for prioritization is not immediately apparent from these results.