Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

12-01-2024

Minimal clinically important difference in the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief (WHOQOL-BREF) for adults with neurofibromatosis

Auteurs: Malvina O. Pietrzykowski, Ana-Maria Vranceanu, Eric A. Macklin, Ryan A. Mace

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2024

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to estimate minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief version (WHOQOL-BREF) among adults with neurofibromatosis (NF). An MCID is needed to demonstrate clinical meaningfulness of interventions for NF.

Methods

We estimated MCID for the WHOQOL-BREF: the quality of life (QoL) measure recommended by the Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis International Collaboration. We used data from 228 clinical trial participants with NF type 1, NF type 2-related schwannomatosis, or schwannomatosis (SCHWN) who completed 10 weeks of a virtual group mind–body program targeting resiliency or a time- and attention-matched control. Following established guidelines, we estimated MCIDs using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods for physical, psychological, social relationships, and environmental domains of the WHOQOL-BREF.

Results

MCID results varied across method and QoL domain. Three anchor-based methods, average change (AC), change difference (CD), and regression (REG), yielded the most consistent and comparable MCID across QoL domains. Based on these methods, we recommend ranges for each QoL domain: Physical QoL (3.9–7.3), Psychological QoL (4.7–8.1), Social QoL (2.6–5.9), and Environmental QoL (4.1–6.6).

Conclusion

Establishing a rigorous MCID for QoL in NF is a critical step toward evaluating meaningful change in response to psychosocial interventions.

vorige artikel Anchor-based minimal important difference values are often sensitive to the distribution of the change score

volgende artikel Power analyses for measurement model misspecification and response shift detection with structural equation modeling

Jouhilahti, E.-M., Peltonen, S., Heape, A. M., & Peltonen, J. (2011). The Pathoetiology of neurofibromatosis 1. The American Journal of Pathology, 178(5), 1932–1939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2010.12.056CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Friedman, J. M. (1999). Epidemiology of neurofibromatosis type 1. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 89(1), 1–6.CrossRefPubMed

Vranceanu, A.-M., Merker, V. L., Park, E., & Plotkin, S. R. (2013). Quality of life among adult patients with neurofibromatosis 1, neurofibromatosis 2 and schwannomatosis: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 114(3), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-013-1195-2CrossRefPubMed

Sanagoo, A., Jouybari, L., Koohi, F., & Sayehmiri, F. (2019). Evaluation of QoL in neurofibromatosis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis study. BMC Neurology, 19(1), 123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1338-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Staedtke, V., Anstett, K., Bedwell, D., Giovannini, M., Keeling, K., Kesterson, R., et al. (2023). Gene-targeted therapy for neurofibromatosis and schwannomatosis: The path to clinical trials. Clinical Trials. https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231207970CrossRefPubMed

Lin, A. L., & Gutmann, D. H. (2013). Advances in the treatment of neurofibromatosis-associated tumours. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 10(11), 616–624. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.144CrossRefPubMed

Wolters, P. L., Vranceanu, A.-M., Thompson, H. L., Martin, S., Merker, V. L., Baldwin, A., et al. (2021). Current recommendations for patient-reported outcome measures assessing domains of quality of life in neurofibromatosis clinical trials. Neurology, 97(7 Supplement 1), S50–S63. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000012421CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6CrossRefPubMed

Díaz-Arribas, M. J., Fernández-Serrano, M., Royuela, A., Kovacs, F. M., Gallego-Izquierdo, T., Ramos-Sánchez, M., et al. (2017). Minimal clinically important difference in quality of life for patients with low back pain. Spine, 42(24), 1908–1916. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002298CrossRefPubMed

10.

Den Oudsten, B. L., Zijlstra, W. P., & De Vries, J. (2013). The minimal clinical important difference in the World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument—100. Supportive Care in Cancer, 21(5), 1295–1301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1664-8CrossRef

11.

Mouelhi, Y., Jouve, E., Castelli, C., & Gentile, S. (2020). How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 136. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01344-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Wang, D. L., Smith, K. B., Esparza, S., Leigh, F. A., Muzikansky, A., Park, E. R., & Plotkin, S. R. (2012). Emotional functioning of patients with neurofibromatosis tumor suppressor syndrome. Genetics in Medicine, 14(12), 977–982. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.85CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Simovitch, R., Flurin, P.-H., Wright, T., Zuckerman, J. D., & Roche, C. P. (2018). Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: The minimal clinically important difference. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 27(2), 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.09.013CrossRefPubMed

14.

Vranceanu, A.-M., Zale, E. L., Funes, C. J., Macklin, E. A., McCurley, J., Park, E. R., et al. (2018). Mind-Body Treatment for International English-Speaking Adults With Neurofibromatosis via Live Videoconferencing: Protocol for a Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Research Protocols, 7(10), e11008. https://doi.org/10.2196/11008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Vranceanu, A.-M., Manglani, H. R., Choukas, N. R., Kanaya, M. R., Lester, E., Zale, E. L., et al. (2023). Effect of mind-body skills training on quality of life for geographically diverse adults with neurofibromatosis: A fully remote randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 6(6), e2320599. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.20599CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Skevington, S. M., Lotfy, M., & O’Connell, K. A. (2004). The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL Group. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000018486.91360.00CrossRefPubMed

17.

Sing, T., Sander, O., Beerenwinkel, N., & Lengauer, T. (2005). ROCR: Visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics, 21(20), 3940–3941. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti623CrossRefPubMed

18.

Parker, S. L., Godil, S. S., Shau, D. N., Mendenhall, S. K., & McGirt, M. J. (2013). Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Clinical article. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 18(2), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12312CrossRefPubMed

19.

Zhou, F., Zhang, Y., Sun, Y., Zhang, F., Pan, S., & Liu, Z. (2015). Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in neurological function and quality of life after surgery in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients: A prospective cohort study. European Spine Journal, 24(12), 2918–2923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4208-3CrossRefPubMed

20.

Binenbaum, Y., Amit, M., Billan, S., Cohen, J. T., & Gil, Z. (2014). Minimal clinically important differences in quality of life scores of oral cavity and oropharynx cancer patients. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 21(8), 2773–2781. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3656-zCrossRefPubMed

21.

Butler, J., Khan, M. S., Mori, C., Filippatos, G. S., Ponikowski, P., Comin-Colet, J., et al. (2020). Minimal clinically important difference in quality of life scores for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. European Journal of Heart Failure, 22(6), 999–1005. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1810CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hui, D., Shamieh, O., Paiva, C. E., Perez-Cruz, P. E., Kwon, J. H., Muckaden, M. A., et al. (2015). Minimal clinically important differences in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in cancer patients: A prospective, multicenter study: Symptom Response Determination. Cancer, 121(17), 3027–3035. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29437CrossRefPubMed

23.

Jayadevappa, R., Cook, R., & Chhatre, S. (2017). Minimal important difference to infer changes in health-related quality of life—A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.009CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Minimal clinically important difference in the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief (WHOQOL-BREF) for adults with neurofibromatosis
Auteurs: Malvina O. Pietrzykowski
Ana-Maria Vranceanu
Eric A. Macklin
Ryan A. Mace
Publicatiedatum: 12-01-2024
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03596-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2024

Patient acceptable symptom state and treatment failure threshold values for work productivity and activity Impairment and EQ-5D-5L in osteoarthritis

Scoring the EQ-HWB-S: can we do it without value sets? A non-parametric item response theory analysis

Measuring reconceptualization and reprioritization during France’s first COVID-19-related lockdown in women with and without a history of cancer: an adaptation of the SeiQol-DW and PGI

Healthcare consumer acceptability of routine use of the EQ-5D-5L in clinical care: a cross-sectional survey

Measuring patient activation: the utility of the Patient Activation Measure administered in an interview setting

An effort to improve the collection of patient-generated data: readability and understandability of patient-reported outcomes measures in a survivorship cohort