Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Health Measurement›Nottingham Health Profile
Process / pipelineHealth-related quality of life

Nottingham Health Profile

Nottingham Health Profile Assessment Scale · Also known as: NHP, Nottingham Health Status Measure

The Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) is a perceived health status measure developed by Hunt and colleagues at the University of Nottingham in 1981. It measures subjective well-being across six dimensions: physical mobility, pain, sleep, emotional reactions, social isolation, and energy level. The NHP emphasizes the patient's experience of health problems rather than objective clinical measures.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 3 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Nottingham Health Profile
Duke Health ProfileEQ-5DSF-36 Health SurveySickness Impact ProfileWHOQOL-BREF

When to use it

The NHP is valuable in primary care, general population surveys, and research examining subjective health experiences. It is particularly appropriate for populations with chronic conditions where patient perception of health status is important for management. The NHP is less suitable for disease-specific outcome research or studies requiring detailed functional assessment; condition-specific measures may provide greater sensitivity.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Simple yes/no format maximizes accessibility for diverse literacy and language groups
  • Focuses on patient-perceived health status relevant to clinical decision-making and satisfaction
  • Part II impact section translates health problems into functional life consequences
  • Validated across diverse populations, languages (30+), and health conditions
  • Low respondent burden with short administration time
Limitations
  • Binary yes/no responses reduce nuance compared to Likert-scaled instruments; degree of problem severity is not well captured
  • May be more sensitive to presence/absence of problems than to magnitude of change; limited responsiveness in some populations
  • Part I dimension weighting is equally distributed; clinical significance of dimensions may differ
  • Limited normative data in some populations; comparison to published norms may be difficult

Frequently asked

How does NHP differ from SF-36?

SF-36 measures functional health status with scaled responses; NHP measures perceived health problems with yes/no responses. SF-36 provides detailed functional information; NHP emphasizes the patient's experience of being ill. NHP is simpler and more accessible; SF-36 provides more nuanced data. Choose based on whether you need perceived problems (NHP) or functional detail (SF-36).

What does an NHP physical mobility score of 60 mean?

A mobility score of 60 (on 0–100 scale) indicates the respondent reports substantial difficulty with physical movement, walking, or ability to get around. Whether this is concerning depends on age and context; in an 80-year-old it may be expected, while the same score in a 40-year-old suggests significant mobility barrier.

Is NHP appropriate for monitoring treatment response?

Yes, but with caveats. The binary response format may limit sensitivity to small improvements. NHP works well for detecting large changes (e.g., 'no pain' to 'severe pain') but less well for subtle response gradations. For studies expecting modest treatment effects, consider Likert-scaled instruments.

Why is the social isolation dimension important?

The NHP's social isolation dimension captures the emotional impact of health problems on social life—not just physical isolation. A person with mobility limitations may feel socially isolated even if family visits; conversely, someone with limited social connections might not endorse this problem. It reflects the emotional consequences of health status.

Sources

  1. Hunt, S. M., McKenna, S. P., McEwen, J., et al. (1985). The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Social Science & Medicine, 21(3), 347–354. link ↗
  2. Hunt, S. M., McEwen, J., & McKenna, S. P. (1981). Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 31(228), 377–384. link ↗
  3. McEwen, J., & Hunt, S. M. (2003). Measurement of functional status and well-being. In S. M. Sutherland et al. (Eds.), Health and Health Care in Britain: Text and Applications. Macmillan. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Nottingham Health Profile Assessment Scale. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/health-measurement/nottingham-health-profile

Related methods

Duke Health ProfileEQ-5DSF-36 Health SurveySickness Impact ProfileWHOQOL-BREF

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Duke Health ProfileHealth Measurement↔ compare
  • EQ-5DHealth Measurement↔ compare
  • SF-36 Health SurveyHealth Measurement↔ compare
  • Sickness Impact ProfileHealth Measurement↔ compare
  • WHOQOL-BREFHealth Measurement↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

Sickness Impact Profile

Similar methods

SF-36 Health SurveyDuke Health ProfileSickness Impact ProfileSF-12 Health SurveyWHOQOL-BREFOlder People's Quality of Life QuestionnaireEQ-5DSF-8 Health Survey

Related reference concepts

Health-Related Quality of LifePatient-Reported Outcome MeasuresPain Assessment and MeasurementPatient-Reported OutcomesFunctional Assessment and Disability MeasuresFunctional Outcome Measures in Prosthetics and Orthotics

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Nottingham Health Profile (Nottingham Health Profile Assessment Scale). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/health-measurement/nottingham-health-profile · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Stephen Hunt and colleagues at University of Nottingham
Subfamily
Health-related quality of life
Year
1981
Type
Perceived health status assessment
Related methods
Duke Health ProfileEQ-5DSF-36 Health SurveySickness Impact ProfileWHOQOL-BREF
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account