Using instrument-defined health state transitions to estimate minimally important differences for four preference-based health-related quality of life instruments

Medical Care

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 365-371

  Luo, Nan ^a   Johnson, Jeffrey A ^b   Coons, Stephen Joel ^c  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c PRO Consortium   (Canada)

Author keywords

Health state preference; Health state utility; Minimally important difference

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EFFECT SIZE; EQ 5D; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH UTILITIES INDEX MARK 2; HEALTH UTILITIES INDEX MARK 3; HUMAN; MINIMALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 6D; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77950282183     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181c162a2     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (DRAFT), February 2006. Available at: http:// www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft. pdf. Accessed June 1, 2008.
2. Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Commentary-goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res. 2005;40:593-597.
3. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al; Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371-383.
4. Hays RD, Farivar SS, Liu H. Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD. 2005;2:63-67.
5. Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, et al; The Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:285-295.
6. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102-109.
7. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337-343.
8. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34:702-722.
9. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40:113-128.
10. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271-292.
11. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al, eds. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996:82-123.
12. Drummond MF, O' Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, et al. Cost-utility analysis. In: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1997:139-204.
13. Drummond M. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33:344-349.
14. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:54.
15. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:4.
16. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1523-1532.
17. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:1571-1582.
18. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70.
19. Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, et al. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15:141-155.
20. Khanna D, Furst DE, Wong WK, et al; Scleroderma Collagen Type 1 Study Group. Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in systemic sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2007;16: 1083-1092.
21. Wiebe S, Matijevic S, Eliasziw M, et al. Clinically Important Change in Quality of Life in Epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;73: 116-120.
22. Trakas K, Oh PI, Singh S, et al. The health status of obese individuals in Canada. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25:662-1628
23. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203-220.
24. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095-1108.
25. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons; 2000.
26. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988.
27. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Phar-macoeconomics. 2000;18:419-423.
28. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109-114.