What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101153626 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1477-7525 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14777525 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Health Qual Life Outcomes Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: [London] : BioMed Central, c2003-

Health Status Indicators* ; Quality of Life* ; Surveys and Questionnaires*; Outcome Assessment, Health Care/*methods ; Psychometrics/*instrumentation; Aged ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Longitudinal Studies ; Observation ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Reproducibility of Results

Background: The SF-6D is a new single summary preference-based measure of health derived from the SF-36. Empirical work is required to determine what is the smallest change in SF-6D scores that can be regarded as important and meaningful for health professionals, patients and other stakeholders.
Objectives: To use anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference (MID) for the SF-6D for various datasets.
Methods: All responders to the original SF-36 questionnaire can be assigned an SF-6D score provided the 11 items used in the SF-6D have been completed. The SF-6D can be regarded as a continuous outcome scored on a 0.29 to 1.00 scale, with 1.00 indicating "full health". Anchor-based methods examine the relationship between an health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure and an independent measure (or anchor) to elucidate the meaning of a particular degree of change. One anchor-based approach uses an estimate of the MID, the difference in the QoL scale corresponding to a self-reported small but important change on a global scale. Patients were followed for a period of time, then asked, using question 2 of the SF-36 as our global rating scale, (which is not part of the SF-6D), if there general health is much better (5), somewhat better (4), stayed the same (3), somewhat worse (2) or much worse (1) compared to the last time they were assessed. We considered patients whose global rating score was 4 or 2 as having experienced some change equivalent to the MID. In patients who reported a worsening of health (global change of 1 or 2) the sign of the change in the SF-6D score was reversed (i.e. multiplied by minus one). The MID was then taken as the mean change on the SF-6D scale of the patients who scored (2 or 4).
Results: This paper describes the MID for the SF-6D from seven longitudinal studies that had previously used the SF-36.
Conclusions: From the seven reviewed studies (with nine patient groups) the MID for the SF-6D ranged from 0.010 to 0.048, with a weighted mean estimate of 0.033 (95% CI: 0.029 to 0.037). The corresponding Standardised Response Means (SRMs) ranged from 0.11 to 0.48, with a mean of 0.30 and were mainly in the "small to moderate" range using Cohen's criteria, supporting the MID results. Using the half-standard deviation (of change) approach the mean effect size was 0.051 (range 0.033 to 0.066). Further empirical work is required to see whether or not this holds true for other patient groups and populations.

Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 Apr;77(4):384-92. (PMID: 11936936)
Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 Apr;77(4):371-83. (PMID: 11936935)
Qual Life Res. 2002 Feb;11(1):1-7. (PMID: 12003051)
Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 May;77(5):479-87. (PMID: 12004998)
Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 May;77(5):488-94. (PMID: 12004999)
Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 Jun;77(6):561-71. (PMID: 12059127)
Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 Jun;77(6):572-83. (PMID: 12059128)
Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(7):455-62. (PMID: 12093301)
Qual Life Res. 2002 Sep;11(6):509-16. (PMID: 12206571)
Arthritis Rheum. 1985 May;28(5):542-7. (PMID: 4004963)
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171-8. (PMID: 3818871)
Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S178-89. (PMID: 2646488)
Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15. (PMID: 2691207)
Med Care. 1990 Jul;28(7):632-42. (PMID: 2366602)
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Feb;59(1):12-9. (PMID: 2002127)
Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83. (PMID: 1593914)
J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Jan;47(1):81-7. (PMID: 8283197)
J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Aug;50(8):869-79. (PMID: 9291871)
Thorax. 1997 Oct;52(10):879-87. (PMID: 9404375)
BMJ. 1998 May 16;316(7143):1487-91. (PMID: 9582132)
J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1115-28. (PMID: 9817129)
Med Care. 1999 May;37(5):469-78. (PMID: 10335749)
Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):350-7. (PMID: 11491194)
Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):344-9. (PMID: 11491193)
Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999 Sep;38(9):870-7. (PMID: 10515649)
Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Aug;45(4):384-91. (PMID: 11501727)
Age Ageing. 2001 Jul;30(4):337-43. (PMID: 11509313)
Med Care. 2001 Oct;39(10):1039-47. (PMID: 11567167)
Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 Apr;77(4):367-70. (PMID: 11936934)
J Health Econ. 2002 Mar;21(2):271-92. (PMID: 11939242)

Date Created: 20030510 Date Completed: 20090630 Latest Revision: 20220408

20221213

PMC155547

10.1186/1477-7525-1-4

12737635