Nottingham Health Profile
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.
Key highlights
- 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
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
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
- 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
- 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
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
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.
- 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.
- 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.
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Nottingham Health Profile. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/health-measurement/nottingham-health-profile