Abstract
Purpose
To facilitate the interpretation of empirical results produced by the 15D, a generic, preference-based instrument for measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a subjective five-category global assessment scale (GAS) was used as an external anchor to determine the minimum important change (MIC) in the 15D scores.
Methods
Altogether 4,903 hospital patients representing sixteen disease entities and having the 15D score at baseline repeated the HRQoL assessment at 6 months after treatment and answered the question: compared to the situation before treatment, my overall health status is now (1) much better, (2) slightly better, (3) much the same, (4) slightly worse, (5) much worse. Regression analysis was used to estimate the MIC for improvement/deterioration, defined as the lower/upper limit of 99.9 % confidence interval of the regression coefficient, standardized for baseline HRQoL, for categories (2) and (4), respectively, and confirmed by ROC curve analysis.
Results
The limits or intervals for classifying the changes of 15D scores into GAS categories were >.035 for (1), .015–.035 for (2),>−.015 and<.015 for (3), −.035–−.015 for (4) and <−.035 for (5). The lower/upper limits of ±.015 for categories (2) and (4) can be regarded as the generic MIC thresholds for improvement/deterioration, respectively.
Conclusions
The generic MICs for the change of 15D scores are ±.015. Follow-up studies using the 15D should report the mean change in the 15D score, its statistical significance, relationship to the MIC, and the distribution of the changes of the 15D scores into the five categories.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jaeshke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415.
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K., & Norman, G. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 371–383.
King, M. T. (2011). A point of minimal important difference (MID): A critique of terminology and methods. Expert Expert review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 11(2), 171–184.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Katz, J. N., Wright, J. G., Wells, G., Boers, M., et al. (2001). Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome measures in rheumatology. Minimal clinically important difference. The Journal of Rheumatology, 28, 400–405.
de Vet, H. C., Beckerman, H., Terwee, C. B., Terluin, B., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). Definition of clinical differences. The Journal of Rheumatology, 33, 434.
de Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C. B. (2010). The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 804–805.
Gatchel, R. J., Mayer, T. G., & Chou, R. (2012). What does/should the minimum clinically important difference measure? A reconsideration of its clinical value in evaluating efficacy of lumbar fusion surgery. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 28(5), 387–396.
Lydick, E., & Epstein, R. S. (1993). Interpretation of quality of life changes. Quality of Life Research, 2, 221–226.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Norman, G., Sloan, J., & Wyrwich, K. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592.
Jakobson, N., & Truaux, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19.
Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for indentifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(9), 861–873.
Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2004). An integrated method to determine meaningful changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 1153–1160.
de Vet, H. C., Ostelo, R. W. J. D., Terwee, C., van der Roer, N., Knol, D., Beckerman, H., et al. (2007). Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and distribution-based approach. Quality of Life Research, 16, 131–142.
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.
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.
Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. (2007). Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 70.
Wiebe, S., Matijevic, S., Eliasziw, M., & Derry, P. A. (2002). Clinically important change in quality of life in epilepsy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 73, 116–120.
Sintonen, H. (1994). Outcome measurement in acid-related diseases. Pharmacoeconomics, 5(suppl. 3), 17–26.
Sintonen, H. (1994).The 15D-measure of health-related quality of life. I. Reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Working Paper 41. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation. (http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/wp41.pdf).
Sintonen, H. (1995). The 15D-measure of health-related quality of life. II. Feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system, Working Paper 42. Melbourne : Centre for Health Program Evaluation 1995. (http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/pubs/wp42.pdf).
Sintonen, H. (2001). The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Annals of Medicine, 33, 328–336.
15D instrument: http://www.15d-instrument.net/15d. Accessed 2 June 2014.
Wheaton, L., & Pope, J. (2010). The minimally important difference for patient-reported outcomes in spondyloarthropathies including pain, fatigue, sleep and Health Assessment Questionnaire. The Journal of Rheumatology, 37(4), 816–822.
Kwok, T., & Pope, J. E. (2010). Minimally important difference for patient-reported outcomes in psoriatic arthritis: Health Assessment Questionnaire and pain, fatigue and global visual analog scales. The Journal of Rheumatology, 37(5), 1024–1028.
Santanello, N. C., Zhang, J., Seidenberg, B., Reiss, T. F., & Barber, B. L. (1999). What are minimal important changes for asthma measures in a clinical trial? European Respiratory Journal, 14, 23–27.
Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D. (2014). Don’t middle your MIDs: Regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences. Quality of Life Research, 23, 1–4.
Copay, A., Subach, B., Glassman, S., Polly, D., & Schuler, T. (2007). Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A review of concepts and methods. The Spine Journal, 7, 541–546.
Åberg, F., Rissanen, A. M., Sintonen, H., Roine, R. P., Höckerstedt, K., & Isoniemi, H. (2009). Health-related quality of life and employment status of liver transplant patients. Liver Transplantation, 15(1), 64–72.
McClimans, L. (2011). Interpretability, validity, and the minimum important difference. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 32, 389–401.
Wyrwich, K. W., & Tardino, V. M. (2006). Understanding global transition assessments. Quality of Life Research, 15, 995–1004.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alanne, S., Roine, R.P., Räsänen, P. et al. Estimating the minimum important change in the 15D scores. Qual Life Res 24, 599–606 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0787-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0787-4