SF-6D utility index as measure of minimally important difference in health status change

Journal of the American Pharmacists Association

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 34-42

  Gandhi, Pranav K ^a   Ried, L Douglas ^b   Bibbey, Alex ^c   Huang, I Chan ^c  

^a South College School of Pharmacy   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Global rating of change; Hypertension; Minimally important differences; SF 6D

Indexed keywords

ATENOLOL; VERAPAMIL; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT;

AGED; ARTICLE; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 6D; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEALTH SURVEY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; RACE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNITED STATES;

AGED; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; ATENOLOL; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKERS; CONTINENTAL POPULATION GROUPS; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; UNITED STATES; VERAPAMIL;

EID: 84861213357     PISSN: 15443191     EISSN: 15443450     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1331/JAPhA.2012.10114     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371-83.
2. 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;14:1523-32.
3. van Walraven C, Mahon JL, Moher D, et al. Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: implications for sample-size calculation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:717-23.
4. 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.
5. Yost KJ, Sorensen MV, Hahn EA, et al. Using multiple anchor- and distribution-based estimates to evaluate clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biologic Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument. Value Health. 2005;8:117-27.
6. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimally clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407-15.
7. Croog SH, Levine S, Testa MA, et al. The effects of antihypertensive therapy on the quality of life. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:1657-64.
8. Pepine CJ, Handberg-Thurmond E, Marks RG, et al. Rationale and design of the International Verapamil SR/Trandolapril Study (INVEST): an Internet-based randomized trial in coronary artery disease patients with hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:1228-37.
9. Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, et al. A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease: the International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290:2805-16.
10. Cella D, Eton DT, Lai JS, et al. Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimally clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2002;24:547-61.
11. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102-9.
12. Ried LD, Tueth MJ, Handberg E, et al. A Study of Antihypertensive Drugs and Depressive Symptoms (SADD-Sx) in patients treated with a calcium antagonist versus an atenolol hypertension Treatment Strategy in the International Verapamil SR-Trandolapril Study (INVEST). Psychosom Med. 2005;67:398-406.
13. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2413-46.
14. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271-92.
15. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1115-28.
16. Eton DT, Cella D, Yost KJ, et al. A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:898-910.
17. Cruce TM. A note on the calculation and interpretation of the delta-p statistic for categorical independent variables. Research in Higher Education. 2009;50:608-22.
18. Khanna D, Furst DE, Wong WK, et al. Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in the systemic sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1083-92.
19. Hays RD, Farivar S, Liu H. Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD. 2005;2:63-7.
20. VanderZee KI, Buunk BP, Sanderman R. Social comparisons as a mediator between health problems and subjective health evaluations. Br J Soc Psychol. 1995;34:53-65.
21. Cheng ST, Fung H, Chan AC. Living status and psychological well-being: social comparison as a moderator in later life. Aging Ment Health. 2008;12:654-61.
22. Mozes B, Maor Y, Shmueli A. Do we know what global ratings of health-related quality of life measure? Qual Life Res. 1999;8:269-73.
23. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:1-7.
24. Jenkinson C, Peto V, Coulter A. Measuring change over time: a comparison of results from a global single item of health status and the multi-dimensional SF-36 health status survey questionnaire in patients presenting with menorrhagia. Qual Life Res. 1994;3:317-21.
25. Gough IR, Furnival CM, Schilder L, Grove W. Assessment of the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1983;19:1161-5.
26. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:81-7.