| Name of the Instrument/Tool | Oxford Hip Score (OHS) |
| First Description |
Dawson et al. J Bone Joint Surg Br |
| Year | 1996 |
| Domains | |
| Concept of constructs | Physical function, Pain, Health related quality of life |
| Population/Disease | Disease specific |
| Originally developed for | Osteoarthritis (OA) |
| Other rheumatic diseases where can be applied (only if validated) |
--- |
| Additional population with no rheumatic diseases |
No |
| Language: Originally published in | English |
| Available in Language | Danish, French, Korean, Turkish, Dutch, German |
| REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION | |
| Author/s | Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D |
| Title | Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. |
| Journal | Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume |
| Year | 1996 |
| Vol | 78 |
| Num | 2 |
| Pages | 185-90 |
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Language | English |
| Other references of interest | |
| Link | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17785736 |
| Brief Description |
Murray D, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D, Carr A, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:1010–4. |
| Link | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25441700 |
| Brief Description |
Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray DW, Carr AJ, Price AJ. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jan;68(1):73-9 |
| Link | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16376260 |
| Brief Description |
Kalairajah Y, Azurza K, Hulme C, Molloy S, Drabu KJ. Health outcome measures in the evaluation of total hip arthroplasties: a comparison between the Harris Hip Score and the Oxford Hip Score. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:1037–41. |
| Instrument/Tool Translations References | |
| Link | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16097545 |
| Brief Description |
Gosens T, Hoefnagels NH, de Vet RC, Dhert WJ, van Langelaan EJ, Bulstra SK, et al. The “Oxford Heup Score”: the translation and validation of a questionnaire into Dutch to evaluate the results of total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2005;76:204–11. |
| Link | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345630 |
| Brief Description |
Delaunay C, Epinette JA, Dawson J, Murray D, Jolles BM. Cross-cultural adaptations of the Oxford-12 Hip score to the French speaking population. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2009;95:89–99. |
| Link | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19214685 |
| Brief Description |
Uesugi Y, Makimoto K, Fujita K, Nishii T, Sakai T, Sugano N. Validity and responsiveness of the Oxford Hip Score in a prospective study with Japanese total hip arthroplasty patients. J Orthop Sci 2009;14:35–9. |
| DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION | |
| Correspondence to | Dawson Jill |
| jill.dawson@dph.ox.ac.uk | |
| Address | Division of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Oxford, Gibson Building, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK |
| Website | http://isis-innovation.com/health-outcomes/ |
| Available | --- |
| Links |
The instrument is copyrighted. Anybody wanting to use the measure can request permissions to use on the website |
| DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT | |
| Type Of Measure | Composite Index, Questionnaire, Scale |
| Brief Description |
OHS was developed to assess outcome after total hip replacement (THR). The score reflects the patient's perceptions and covers concepts such as pain and function of the hip in relation to daily activities such as walking, dressing, sleeping etc. Currently, a new version is used with the original 12 items, but with a different scoring (Murray, 2007). |
| Number of Items | 12 |
| Range | 12-60 (original score); 0-48 (modified score) |
| Responses options/scale |
Yes 0=worst an 4=best outcome (current modified version) |
| Developed for | Research |
| PRACTICAL APPLICATION | |
| Method of administration | Self-administered |
| Recommendations to score |
The total score is calculated as the sum of scores from responses to all 12 items. |
| Score Interpretation | Higher scores reflect poor outcome and lower scores reflect better outcomes (original version); in the modified version this was reversed. |
| Cut-off points | original scoring: <19: excellent, 19–26: good, 27–33: fair, >33: poor (Kalairajah, 2005); updated version: >41: excellent, 34–41: good, 27–33: fair, <27: poor (Kalairajah, 2005) |
| Cut-off points applied to | --- |
| Smallest detectable change if described | 5 points |
| Smallest detectable change applied to | --- |
| Completion time by the patient | 2-15 minutes |
| Scoring time by the assessor | - minutes |
| Training to score | Not necessary |
| Strengths | Useful in clinical practice & research, Widely used |
| Limitations | Copyrighted |
| OTHER COMMENTS | |
| Other Comments | --- |