Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 196–202

Clinically important changes in health-related quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

An expert consensus panel report
  • Kathleen W. Wyrwich
  • Stephan D. Fihn
  • William M. Tierney
  • Kurt Kroenke
  • Ajit N. Babu
  • Fredric D. Wolinsky
Original Articles

Abstract

BOJECTIVE: Without clinical input on what constitutes a significant change, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures are less likely to be adopted by clinicians for use in daily practice. Although standards can be determined empirically by within-person change studies based on patient self-reports, these anchor-based methods incorporate only the patients’ perspectives of important HRQoL change, and do not reflect an informed clinical evaluation. The objective of this study was to establish clinically important difference standards from the physician’s perspective for use of 2 HRQoL measures among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

DESIGN: We assembled a 9-person expert panel of North American physicians familiar with the use of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), a disease-specific HRQoL measure, or the generic Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36, Version 2.0) among patients with COPD.

RESULTS: Using 2 rounds of the Delphi process, 1 in-person meeting, and an iterative improvement process for circulating and correcting the final report, the expert panel established small, moderate, and large clinically important change levels for the CRQ and SF-36.

CONCLUSIONS: For this expert physician panel, levels for detecting clinically important differences on the CRQ were equal to or slightly higher than previous studies based on patient-reported differences. Clinically important differences on the SF-36, Version 2.0, were noticeably larger than previous estimates based on cross-sectional differences between clinically defined patient groups.

Key words

quality of life COPD important change consensus panel RAND method Delphi process 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Murray C, Lopez A. Evidence-based health policy—lessons from the global burden of disease study. Science. 1996;274:740–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eakin E, Sassi-Dambron D, Ries A, Kaplan R. Reliability and validity of dyspnea measures in patients with obstructive lung diseases. Int J Behav Med. 1995;2:118–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mahler D, Weinberg D, Wells C, Feinstein A. The measurement of dyspnea. Contents, interobserver agreement, and physiologic correlates of two new clinical indexes. Chest. 1984;85:751–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fletcher C, Elmes P, Fairbairn A, Wood C. The significance of respiratory symptoms and the diagnosis of chronic bronchitis in a working population. BMJ. 1959;2:257–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Thoracic Society. Recommended respiratory disease questionnaire for use with adults and children in epidemiological research. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1978;118(suppl):7–53.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McGavin C, Artvinli M, Naoe H, McHardy G. Dyspnoea, disability, and distance walked: comparison of estimates of exercise performance in respiratory disease. BMJ. 1978;2:241–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daughton D, Fix A, Kass I, Bell C, Patil K. Maximum oxygen consumption and the ADAPT quality-of-life scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992;63:620–2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stoller J, Ferranti R, Feinstein A. Further specification and evaluation of a new clinical index for dyspnea. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1986;134:1129–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weaver T, Narsavage G. Reliability and validity of Pulmonary Impact Profile Scale. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1989;139:A244.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moody L. Measurement of psychophysiologic response variables in chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Appl Nurs Res. 1990;3:36–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wigal J, Creer T, Kotses H. The COPD self-efficacy scale. Chest. 1991;99:1193–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cox N, Hendriks J, Dijkhuizen R, Binkhorst R, van Herwaarden C. Usefulness of a medicopsychological questionnaire for lung patients. Int J Rehabil Res. 1991;14:267–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lareau S, Carrieri-Kohlman V, Janson-Bjerklie S, Ross P. Development and testing of the pulmonary functional status and dyspnea questionnaire (PFSDQ). Heart Lung. 1994;23:242–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guyatt G, Berman L, Townsend M, Pugsley S, Chambers L. A measure of quality of life for clinical trials in chronic lung disease. Thorax. 1987;42:773–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tu S, McDonnell M, Spertus J, Steele B, Fihn S. A new self-administered questionnaire to monitor health-related quality of life in patients with COPD. Chest. 1997;112:614–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barr J, Schumacher G, Freeman S, LeMoine M, Bakst A, Jones P. American translation, modification, and validation of the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire. Clin Ther. 2000;22:1121–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guyatt G, King D, Feeny D, Stubbing D, Goldstein R. Generic and specific measurement of health-related quality of life in a clinical trial of respiratory rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:187–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hajiro T, Nishimura M, Tsukino M, Ikeda A, Koyama H, Izumi T. Comparison of discriminative properties among disease-specific questionnaires for measuring health-related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;157:785–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harper R, Brazier J, Waterhouse J, Walters S, Jones N, Howard P. Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting. Thorax. 1997;52:879–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lacasse Y, Wong E, Guyatt G. A systematic overview of the measurement properties of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire. Can Respir J. 1997;4:131–9.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Juniper E, Guyatt G, Willan A, Griffith L. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:81–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barber B, Santanello N, Epstein R. Impact of the global on patient perceivable change in an asthma-specific QOL instrument. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Osoba D, Rodriques G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:139–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Norman G, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lessons of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:869–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wyrwich K, Tierney W, Wolinsky F. Further evidence supporting a SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:861–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wyrwich K, Nienaber N, Tierney W, Wolinsky F. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 1999;37:469–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Redelmeier D, Guyatt G, Goldstein R. Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1215–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lydick E, Epstein R. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:221–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McHorney C, Ware J, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JF. The validity and relative precision of MOS short and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1992;30(suppl):253–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brazier J, Harper R, Jones N, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305:160–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stewart A, Greenfield S, Hays R, et al. Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic medical conditions: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1989;262:907–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brook R, Chassin M, Fink A, Solomon D, Kosecoff J, Park R. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2:53–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moore A, Morton S, Beck J, et al. A new paradigm for alcohol use in older persons. Med Care. 1999;37:165–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Campbell S, Hann M, Roland M, Quayle J, Shekelle P. The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round delphi survey. Med Care. 1999;37:964–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McGlynn E, Kosecoff J, Brook R. Format and conduct of consensus development conferences: multi-nation comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6:450–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dalkey N. The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation; 1969.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Clancy C, Eisenberg J. Outcomes research: measuring the end results of health care. Science. 1998;282:245–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stewart A, Hays R, Ware J Jr. The MOS Short-Form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26:724–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shekelle P, Kahan J, Bernstein S, Leape L, Kamberg C, Park RE. The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1888–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stasser G, Kerr N, Davis JH. Influence processes and consensus models in decision-making groups. In: Paulus P. ed. Psychology of Group Influence, 2nd ed Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1989.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Neymark N, Kiebert W, Torfs K, et al. Methodological and statistical issues of quality of life (QOL) and economic evaluation in cancer clinical trials-report of a workshop. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34(9):1317–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen W. Wyrwich
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stephan D. Fihn
    • 5
    • 6
  • William M. Tierney
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
  • Kurt Kroenke
    • 7
    • 8
  • Ajit N. Babu
    • 3
    • 4
  • Fredric D. Wolinsky
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Research MethodologyReceived from Saint Louis UniversitySt. Louis
  2. 2.School of Public HealthSt. Louis
  3. 3.School of MedicineSt. Louis
  4. 4.Veterans’ Administration Medical CenterSt. Louis
  5. 5.University of Washington Medical CenterSeattle
  6. 6.VA Puget Sound Health Care SystemSeattle
  7. 7.Regrenstrief Institute for Health CareIndianapolis
  8. 8.Indiana University School of MedicineIndianapolis
  9. 9.Roudebush Veterans’ Administration Medical CenterIndianapolis

Personalised recommendations