Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-08-2008

Separating gains and losses in health when calculating the minimum important difference for mapped utility measures

Auteurs: Michael B. Nichol, Joshua D. Epstein

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2008

Abstract

Objective

To estimate the minimum important difference (MID) for a variety of mapped utility measures and to determine whether patients perceiving gains and losses in health status should be treated equally when calculating the MID.

Methods

A longitudinal study within a California managed care population of 6,932 patients was retrospectively analyzed. Utilities were derived from the SF-36 short-form health survey using multiple validated mapping methods. Absolute utility changes for patients who considered their current health as ‘somewhat better’ or ‘somewhat worse’ in the prior year were compared to determine if gains and losses in utility values could be combined. The MIDs were calculated and compared using anchor- and distribution-based methods.

Results

Two thousand one hundred patients reported ‘somewhat better’ or ‘somewhat worse’ health in the first year. When combining these patients, the average MID for all mapped utility measures was 0.03 (SD = 0.1), a magnitude similar to that identified by Walters. However, when separated, the mean MID utility change for those reporting ‘somewhat better’ and ‘somewhat worse’ health was 0.02 (SD = 0.1) and −0.06 (SD = 0.1), respectively (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Researchers should consider the effects of combining gains and losses when determining utility MID values.

vorige artikel Health state preference scores for children with permanent childhood hearing loss: a comparative analysis of the QWB and HUI3

volgende artikel Letter to the Editor

Food and Drug Administration. (FDA) (2006). Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcomes measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. FDA, Rockville, MD. Available online at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.pdf#search=%91draft%20guidance%20fda%20patient%20reported%20outcomes’

Torrance, G. W., & Feeny, D. (1989). Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 5, 559–575.PubMed

Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Rusell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wyrwich, K. W., Bullinger, M., Aaronson, N., Hays, R. D., Patrick, D. L., & Symonds, T. (2005). Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 14, 285–295. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2.PubMedCrossRef

Lydick, E., & Epstein, R. S. (1993). Interpretation of quality of life changes. Quality of Life Research, 2, 221–226. 10.1007/BF00435226.PubMedCrossRef

Revicki, D. A., Cella, D., Hays, R. D., Sloan, J. A., Lenderking, W. R., & Aaronson, N. K. (2006). Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 70–74. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-70.PubMedCrossRef

Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989). Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care, 27(Suppl.), S178–S189. doi:10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015 PubMedCrossRef

Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 861–873. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00071-2.PubMedCrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

10.

Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 14(5), 582–592. doi:10.1097/00005650-200305000-00004.CrossRef

11.

Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341–357. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.2.341.CrossRef

12.

Guyatt, G. H., Norman, G. R., Juniper, E. F., & Griffith, L. E. (2002). A critical look at transition ratings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55, 900–908. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00435-3.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Sprangers, M. A. G., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1507–1515. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00045-3.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wywrich, K. W., & Norman, G. R.; Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 371–383.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1523–1532. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Cella, D., Hahn, E. A., & Dineen, K. (2002). Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: Differences between improvement and worsening. Quality of Life Research, 11, 207–221. doi:10.1023/A:1015276414526.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Lundberg, L., Johannesson, M., Isacson, D. G. L., & Borgquist, L. (1999). The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Medical Decision Making, 19(2), 128–140. doi:10.1177/0272989X9901900203.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Shmueli, A. (2004). The relationship between the visual analog scale and the SF-36 scales in the general population: An update. Medical Decision Making, 24(1), 61–63. doi:10.1177/0272989X03261562.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Von Korff, M., Wagner, E. H., & Saunders, K. (1992). A chronic disease score from automated pharmacy data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 197–203. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90016-G.CrossRef

20.

Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 4–11. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-4.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Ware, J. E., & Kosinski, M. (2001). The SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales. A manual for users of version 1, 2nd edn. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.

22.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Nichol, M. B., Sengupta, N., & Globe, D. R. (2001). Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: Estimation of the health utility index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Medical Decision Making, 21, 105–112. doi:10.1177/02729890122062352.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Yost, K. J., Cella, D., Chawla, A., Holmgren, E., Eton, T., Ayanian, J. Z., West, D. W. (2005). Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 1241–1251. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.008.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Pickard, A. S., Wang, Z., Walton, S. M., & Lee, T. A. (2005). Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 11–19. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-3-11.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Brissette, I., Leventhal, H., & Leventhal, E. A. (2003). Observer ratings of health and sickness: Can other people tell us anything about our health that we don’t already know? Health Psychology, 22, 471–478. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.22.5.471.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Brissette, I., Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2002). The role of optimism in social network development, coping, and psychological adjustment during a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 102–111. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.102.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Wyrwich, K. W., Metz, S. M., Babu, A. N., Kroenke, K., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (2002). The reliability of retrospective change assessments. Quality of Life Research, 11(7), 636.

Titel: Separating gains and losses in health when calculating the minimum important difference for mapped utility measures
Auteurs: Michael B. Nichol
Joshua D. Epstein
Publicatiedatum: 01-08-2008
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2008
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9369-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2008

Life satisfaction in a sample of empty-nest elderly: a survey in the rural area of a mountainous county in China

Impact of comorbid diabetes on quality of life and perception of angina pain in people with angina registered with general practitioners in the UK

Measuring breast cancer-specific health-related quality of life in South Asia: psychometric properties of the Sinhala version of the EORTC QLQ-BR23

Severity of cardiovascular disease and health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: a longitudinal analysis from CaPSURE

A relevant study was missed in our systematic review on the impact of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice

Parent–child agreement across child health-related quality of life instruments: a review of the literature