What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D
- PMID: 12737635
- PMCID: PMC155547
- DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-4
What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D
Abstract
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.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D.Qual Life Res. 2005 Aug;14(6):1523-32. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0. Qual Life Res. 2005. PMID: 16110932 Review.
-
Responsiveness and minimally important difference of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Mar;220(3):265.e1-265.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1094. Epub 2018 Nov 22. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019. PMID: 30471259 Free PMC article.
-
Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in systemic sclerosis.Qual Life Res. 2007 Aug;16(6):1083-92. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9207-3. Epub 2007 Apr 3. Qual Life Res. 2007. PMID: 17404896 Clinical Trial.
-
Validity, responsiveness, and minimal important difference for the SF-6D health utility scale in a spinal cord injured population.Value Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;11(4):680-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00311.x. Epub 2008 Jan 11. Value Health. 2008. PMID: 18194406
-
A systematic review of SF-6D health state valuation studies.J Med Econ. 2023 Jan-Dec;26(1):584-593. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2023.2195753. J Med Econ. 2023. PMID: 36973235 Review.
Cited by
-
Health-related quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic: The impact of restrictive measures using data from two Dutch population-based cohort studies.PLoS One. 2024 Mar 18;19(3):e0300324. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300324. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 38498510 Free PMC article.
-
Bathing Adaptations in the Homes of Older Adults (BATH-OUT-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial, economic evaluation and process evaluation.Trials. 2024 Jan 22;25(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07677-3. Trials. 2024. PMID: 38254164 Free PMC article.
-
Health-related quality of life and experience measures, to assess patients' experiences of peripheral intravenous catheters: a secondary data analysis.Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024 Jan 2;22(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s12955-023-02217-8. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024. PMID: 38167165 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Rationale and protocol for a safety, tolerability and feasibility randomized, parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot study of a novel ketone ester targeting frailty via immunometabolic geroscience mechanisms.medRxiv [Preprint]. 2023 Oct 26:2023.10.25.23297571. doi: 10.1101/2023.10.25.23297571. medRxiv. 2023. PMID: 37961234 Free PMC article. Preprint.
-
Surgical correction of the genital hiatus at the time of sacrocolpopexy - a 7-year Markov analysis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Int Urogynecol J. 2023 Dec;34(12):2969-2975. doi: 10.1007/s00192-023-05628-9. Epub 2023 Aug 31. Int Urogynecol J. 2023. PMID: 37650903
References
-
- Sloan JA, Cella D, Frost M, Guyatt GH, Sprangers M, Symonds T, and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group Assessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient quality of life: introduction to the symposium, content overview, and definition of terms. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2002;77:367–370. - PubMed
-
- Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR, and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2002;77:371–383. - PubMed
-
- Cella D, Bullinger M, Scott C, Barofsky I, and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group Group vs. individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2002;77:384–392. - PubMed
-
- Sloan JA, Aaronson N, Cappelleri JC, Fairclough DL, Varricchio C, Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2002;77:479–487. - PubMed
-
- Frost MH, Bonomi AE, Ferrans CE, Wong GY, Hays RD, and the Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2002;77:488–494. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources