Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures

被引:1152
作者
Guyatt, GH [1 ]
Osoba, D
Wu, AW
Wyrwich, KW
Norman, GR
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[2] Hlth Sci Ctr, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[3] St Louis Univ, Dept Res Methodol, St Louis, MO 63103 USA
[4] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Baltimore, MD USA
[5] QOL Consulting, W Vancouver, BC, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.4065/77.4.371
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
One can classify ways to establish the interpretability of quality-of-life measures as anchor based or distribution based. Anchor-based measures require an independent standard or anchor that is itself interpretable and at least moderately correlated with the instrument being explored. One can further classify anchor-based approaches into population-focused and individual-focused measures. Population-focused approaches are analogous to construct validation and rely on multiple anchors that frame an individual's response in terms of the entire population (eg, a group of patients with a score of 40 has a mortality of 20%). Anchors for population-based approaches include status on a single item, diagnosis, symptoms, disease severity, and response to treatment, Individual-focused approaches are analogous to criterion validation. These methods, which rely on a single anchor and establish a minimum important difference in change in score, require 2 steps. The first step establishes the smallest change in score that patients consider, on average, to be important (the minimum important difference). The second step estimates the proportion of patients who have achieved that minimum important difference. Anchors for the individual-focused approach include global ratings of change within patients and global ratings of differences between patients. Distribution-based methods rely on expressing an effect in terms of the underlying distribution of results. Investigators may express effects in terms of between-person standard deviation units, within-person standard deviation units, and the standard error of measurement. No single approach to interpretability is perfect. Use of multiple strategies is likely to enhance the interpretability of any particular instrument.
引用
收藏
页码:371 / 383
页数:13
相关论文
共 69 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2002, Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice: The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group
[2]  
[Anonymous], QUALITY LIFE PHARMAC
[3]   Impact of the global on patient perceivable change in an asthma specific QOL questionnaire [J].
Barber, BL ;
Santanello, NC ;
Epstein, RS .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1996, 5 (01) :117-122
[4]   THE SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE - DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL REVISION OF A HEALTH-STATUS MEASURE [J].
BERGNER, M ;
BOBBITT, RA ;
CARTER, WB ;
GILSON, BS .
MEDICAL CARE, 1981, 19 (08) :787-805
[5]  
BEST WR, 1981, DEV GASTROENTEROLOGY, P7
[6]   COMPLETENESS OF REPORTING TRIAL RESULTS - EFFECT ON PHYSICIANS WILLINGNESS TO PRESCRIBE [J].
BOBBIO, M ;
DEMICHELIS, B ;
GIUSTETTO, G .
LANCET, 1994, 343 (8907) :1209-1211
[7]  
Brant R, 1999, STAT MED, V18, P2593, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991015)18:19<2593::AID-SIM392>3.0.CO
[8]  
2-T
[9]   DOES FREE CARE IMPROVE ADULTS HEALTH - RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL [J].
BROOK, RH ;
WARE, JE ;
ROGERS, WH ;
KEELER, EB ;
DAVIES, AR ;
DONALD, CA ;
GOLDBERG, GA ;
LOHR, KN ;
MASTHAY, PC ;
NEWHOUSE, JP .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1983, 309 (23) :1426-1434
[10]   THE IMPACT OF PSYCHOLOGIC FACTORS ON MEASUREMENT OF FUNCTIONAL STATUS - ASSESSMENT OF THE SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE [J].
BROOKS, WB ;
JORDAN, JS ;
DIVINE, GW ;
SMITH, KS ;
NEELON, FA .
MEDICAL CARE, 1990, 28 (09) :793-804