Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

15-06-2021 | Commentary

Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders

Auteurs: Ron D. Hays, John Devin Peipert

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2021

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

Estimates of the minimally important change (MIC) can be used to evaluate whether group-level differences are large enough to be important. But responders to treatment have been based upon group-level MIC thresholds, resulting in inaccurate classification of change over time. This article reviews options and provides suggestions about individual-level statistics to assess whether individuals have improved, stayed the same, or declined.

Methods

Review of MIC estimation and an example of misapplication of MIC group-level estimates to assess individual change. Secondary data analysis to show how perceptions about meaningful change can be used along with significance of individual change.

Results

MIC thresholds yield over-optimistic conclusions about responders to treatment because they classify those who have not changed as responders.

Conclusions

Future studies need to evaluate the significance of individual change using appropriate individual-level statistics such as the reliable change index or the equivalent coefficient of repeatability. Supplementing individual statistical significance with retrospective assessments of change is desirable.
Literatuur
3.
go back to reference Schwartz, N., & Sudman, S. (1994). Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRef Schwartz, N., & Sudman, S. (1994). Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hays, R. D., & Reeve, B. B. (2010). Measurement and modeling of health-related quality of life. In J. Killewo, H. K. Heggenhougen, & S. R. Quah (Eds.), Epidemiology and demography in public health (pp. 195–205). Netherlands: Elsevier. Hays, R. D., & Reeve, B. B. (2010). Measurement and modeling of health-related quality of life. In J. Killewo, H. K. Heggenhougen, & S. R. Quah (Eds.), Epidemiology and demography in public health (pp. 195–205). Netherlands: Elsevier.
19.
go back to reference Lord, F. M. (1963). Elementary models for measuring change. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in measuring change.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Lord, F. M. (1963). Elementary models for measuring change. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in measuring change.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
23.
31.
33.
go back to reference Yuksel, S., Ayhan, S., Nabiyev, V., Domingo-Sabat, M., Vila-Casademunt, A., Obeid, I., et al. (2019). Minimum clinically important difference of the health-related quality of life scales in adult’s deformity calculated by latent class analysis: Is it appropriate to use the same values for surgical and nonsurgical patients? The Spine Journal, 19(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.07.005CrossRefPubMed Yuksel, S., Ayhan, S., Nabiyev, V., Domingo-Sabat, M., Vila-Casademunt, A., Obeid, I., et al. (2019). Minimum clinically important difference of the health-related quality of life scales in adult’s deformity calculated by latent class analysis: Is it appropriate to use the same values for surgical and nonsurgical patients? The Spine Journal, 19(1), 71–78. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​spinee.​2018.​07.​005CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Hays, R. D., Spritzer, K. L., & Reise, S. P. (in press). Using item response theory to identify responders to treatment: Examples with the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) physical functioning and emotional distress scales. Psychometrika Hays, R. D., Spritzer, K. L., & Reise, S. P. (in press). Using item response theory to identify responders to treatment: Examples with the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) physical functioning and emotional distress scales. Psychometrika
36.
go back to reference Guyatt, G., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987). Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 171–178.CrossRefPubMed Guyatt, G., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987). Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40, 171–178.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders
Auteurs
Ron D. Hays
John Devin Peipert
Publicatiedatum
15-06-2021
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02897-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2021

Quality of Life Research 10/2021 Naar de uitgave