Skip to main content
Log in

Estimating the minimum important change in the 15D scores

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jaeshke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lydick, E., & Epstein, R. S. (1993). Interpretation of quality of life changes. Quality of Life Research, 2, 221–226.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sintonen, H. (1994). Outcome measurement in acid-related diseases. Pharmacoeconomics, 5(suppl. 3), 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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).

  21. 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).

  22. Sintonen, H. (2001). The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Annals of Medicine, 33, 328–336.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 15D instrument: http://www.15d-instrument.net/15d. Accessed 2 June 2014.

  24. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. McClimans, L. (2011). Interpretability, validity, and the minimum important difference. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 32, 389–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wyrwich, K. W., & Tardino, V. M. (2006). Understanding global transition assessments. Quality of Life Research, 15, 995–1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harri Sintonen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0787-4

Keywords

Navigation