Evaluating the responsiveness of the endometriosis health profile questionnaire: The EHP-30

Georgina Jones, Crispin Jenkinson, Jenkinson C, Kennedy S, Stephen Kennedy
Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2004 · vol. 13(3) , pp. 705–713 · doi:10.1023/b:qure.0000021316.79349.af · PMID:15130032 · W2000813795
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 117 in-corpus citations
Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-12 ⓘ

This study evaluated the responsiveness of the EHP-30 questionnaire in women undergoing endometriosis surgery, finding it more sensitive to change than the SF-36.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-06 · read from full text ⓘ

The study evaluated the sensitivity to change (responsiveness) of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) questionnaire by mailing the EHP-30 and the SF-36 to 66 women undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis-associated pain, with assessments 2 weeks pre-operation and 4 months post-operation. At follow-up, a transition question about health status change was included, and responsiveness effect sizes, standardized response means, the index of responsiveness, and minimally important differences were calculated, with change scores correlated to transition-question responses. Overall, the EHP-30 showed higher responsiveness metrics than the SF-36, including higher minimally important differences and index of responsiveness, and four of five EHP-30 scales had significant correlations with the transition question. A key limitation was the modest response rate (40/66.6% returned questionnaires). This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it assesses the responsiveness of an endometriosis-specific quality-of-life instrument (EHP-30) to detect change after conservative surgery.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the sensitivity to change of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) questionnaire.SettingThe Women's Center, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford.DesignPostal survey to 66 women undergoing conservative surgery for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. The EHP-30 and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) were administered 2 weeks before the operation, and 4 months post-operatively. At T2 a transition question was included to evaluate changes in patients health status. To evaluate responsiveness effect sizes, standardised response means, the index of responsiveness and the minimally and clinically important differences were calculated.ResultsForty (66.6%) patients returned the questionnaires at time 1 and 2. Overall less responsive effect size scores were found for the SF-36 (0.1-0.5) compared to the EHP-30 (-0.1-1.1) for all patients who had undergone treatment. Minimally important differences and the index of responsiveness were overall higher for the EHP-30 (0.4-2.0) compared to the SF-36 (0.1-1.0). Change scores for four of the five scales were significantly correlated with women's responses to the transition question.ConclusionsResults suggest that the EHP-30 is sensitive to change. Its application in clinical trials should prove beneficial in assessing the impact of medical and surgical interventions upon quality of life for women with endometriosis.
Full text 6,233 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the sensitivity to change of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30) questionnaire. Setting: The Women's Center, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford. Design: Postal survey to 66 women undergoing conservative surgery for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. The EHP-30 and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) were administered 2 weeks before the operation, and 4 months post-operatively. At T2 a transition question was included to evaluate changes in patients health status. To evaluate responsiveness effect sizes, standardised response means, the index of responsiveness and the minimally and clinically important differences were calculated. Results: Forty (66.6%) patients returned the questionnaires at time 1 and 2. Overall less responsive effect size scores were found for the SF-36 (0.1–0.5) compared to the EHP-30 (−0.1–1.1) for all patients who had undergone treatment. Minimally important differences and the index of responsiveness were overall higher for the EHP-30 (0.4–2.0) compared to the SF-36 (0.1–1.0). Change scores for four of the five scales were significantly correlated with women's responses to the transition question. Conclusions: Results suggest that the EHP-30 is sensitive to change. Its application in clinical trials should prove beneficial in assessing the impact of medical and surgical interventions upon quality of life for women with endometriosis. Access this article We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly. Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem. Similar content being viewed by others

References

Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178-S189. Streiner DL, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Jones G, Kennedy S, Barnard A, Wong J, Jenkinson C. Development of an endometriosis quality-of-life instrument: The Endometriosis Health Pro.le-30. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 258-264. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 171-178. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. Sutton CJG, Hill D. Laser laparoscopy in the treatment of endometriosis: A 5-year study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 181-185. Low YL, Edelmann RJ, Sutton C. A psychological profile of endometriosis patients in comparison to patients with pelvic pain of other origins. J Psychosom Res 1993; 37: 111-116. Daniell JF. Laser laparoscopy for endometriosis. Colposcopy Gynecol Laser Surg 1984; 1: 185-192. Donnez J. Today's treatments: Medical, surgical and in partnership. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1999; 1: S5-S13. Adamson GD, Hurd SJ, Pasta DJ, Rodriguez BD. Laparoscopic endometriosis treatment: Is it better? Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 35-44. Sutton CJ. What can we expect from the surgical management of endometriosis? Br J Clin Pract Suppl 1991; 72: 33-42. Ware JE, Sherbourne EC. The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey 1: Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473-483. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990; 28: 263-642. Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, Mowat A, Mowat A. A comparison of the sensitivity to change of several health status instruments in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1993; 20: 429-436. Kosinski M, Keller SD, Hatoum HT, Kong SX, Ware JE. The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and score reliability. Med Care 1999; 37: MS10-MS22. Jenkinson C. Measuring Health and Medical Outcomes. London: UCL Press, 1994. Colwell H, Mathias SD, Pasta DJ, Henning JM, Steege JF. A health-related quality of life instrument for symptomatic patients with endometriosis: A validation study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179: 47-55. Guyatt GH, Feeny D, Patrick D. Proceedings of the international conference on the measurement of quality of life as an outcome in clinical trials: Postscript. Controlled Clin Trials 1991; 12: 266s-269s. Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 221-226. Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Burnam MA, Patrick DL, Perin EB. Evaluating quality of life and health status instruments: Development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 979-992. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behaviourial Sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Guyatt GH, Eagle DJ, Sackett B. Measuring quality of life in the frail elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1433-1444. Bodner C, Garratt AM, Ratcliffe J, Macdonald LM, Penney GC. Measuring health-related quality of life outcomes in women with endometriosis: Results of the gynaecology audit project in Scotland. Health Bull (Edinb) 1997; 55: 109-117. Fitzpatrick R. Applications of health status measures. In: Jenkinson, C (ed.), Measuring Health and Medical Outcomes, London: UCL Press, 1994: 27-41. Paterson C, Langan CE, McKaig GA, et al. Assessing patient outcomes in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: The measure your medical outcome profile (MYMOP), medical outcomes study 6-item general health survey (MOS-6A) and EuroQol (EQ-5D). Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 521-527. Garry R, Clayton R, Hawe J. The Effect of endometriosis and its radical laparoscopic excision on quality of life indicators. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 107: 44-54. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81-87. Author information Authors and Affiliations Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Jones, G., Jenkinson, C. & Kennedy, S. Evaluating the responsiveness of the endometriosis health profile questionnaire: The EHP-30. Qual Life Res 13, 705–713 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000021316.79349.af Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000021316.79349.af

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Endometriosis Psychometrics Quality of Life Sickness Impact Profile Surveys and Questionnaires Treatment Outcome Adult Endometriosis Endometriosis England Female Follow-Up Studies Humans Middle Aged Pain Measurement Pain Measurement Psychometrics Sensitivity and Specificity Social Support

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (29)

Cited by (50)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-07-27T06:15:28.040536+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:12:32.173627+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK