Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D

Background: The SF-6D and EQ-5D are both preference-based measures of health. Empirical work is required to determine what the smallest change is in utility scores that can be regarded as important and whether this change in utility value is constant across measures and conditions. Objectives: To use distribution and anchor-based methods to determine and compare the minimally important difference (MID) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D for various datasets. Methods: The SF-6D is scored on a 0.29–1.00 scale and the EQ-5D on a −0.59–1.00 scale, with a score of 1.00 on both, indicating ‘full health’. Patients were followed for a period of time, then asked, using question 2 of the SF-36 as our anchor, if their 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. This paper describes and compares the MID and standardised response mean (SRM) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D from eight longitudinal studies in 11 patient groups that used both instruments. Results: From the 11 reviewed studies, the MID for the SF-6D ranged from 0.011 to 0.097, mean 0.041. The corresponding SRMs ranged from 0.12 to 0.87, mean 0.39 and were mainly in the ‘small to moderate’ range using Cohen’s criteria, supporting the MID results. The mean MID for the EQ-5D was 0.074 (range −0.011–0.140) and the SRMs ranged from −0.05 to 0.43, mean 0.24. The mean MID for the EQ-5D was almost double that of the mean MID for the SF-6D. Conclusions: There is evidence that the MID for these two utility measures are not equal and differ in absolute values. The EQ-5D scale has approximately twice the range of the SF-6D scale. Therefore, the estimates of the MID for each scale appear to be proportionally equivalent in the context of the range of utility scores for each scale. Further empirical work is required to see whether or not this holds true for other utility measures, patient groups and populations.

[1]  M. Splaine,et al.  Use of the Reliable Change Index to evaluate clinical significance in SF-36 outcomes , 2002, Quality of Life Research.

[2]  G. Regehr,et al.  Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis , 1992 .

[4]  G. Norman,et al.  Interpretation of Changes in Health-related Quality of Life: The Remarkable Universality of Half a Standard Deviation , 2003, Medical care.

[5]  J. Nicholl,et al.  Longer-term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture to patients with chronic low back pain assessed as suitable for primary care management. , 1999, Complementary therapies in medicine.

[6]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. , 1994, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  Paul Kind,et al.  A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey , 1995 .

[8]  M Ryan,et al.  Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. , 2001, Health technology assessment.

[9]  S. Paisley,et al.  Methods for Determining Sample Sizes for Studies Involving Health-Related Quality of Life Measures: A Tutorial , 2001, Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology.

[10]  S. Walters,et al.  Continuing inequality: gender and social class influences on self perceived health after a heart attack , 2003, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[11]  J. Nicholl,et al.  Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture care to patients with chronic low back pain. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[12]  Joseph C. Cappelleri,et al.  Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores , 2002 .

[13]  S. Dixon,et al.  Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with venous leg ulcers , 1999, Quality of Life Research.

[14]  D. Cella,et al.  Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. , 2002, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[15]  A J Morales,et al.  Quality of Life Assessment , 1996, Seminars in reproductive endocrinology.

[16]  W M Tierney,et al.  Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. , 1999, Medical care.

[17]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. , 2002, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[18]  Clare Bradley,et al.  Not-only-a-title , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[19]  J. Brazier,et al.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[20]  N. Jacobson,et al.  Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. , 1991, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[21]  T. Perneger.  What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments , 1998, BMJ.

[22]  T. Rummans,et al.  The clinical significance of quality-of-life results: practical considerations for specific audiences. , 2002, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[23]  M. Snaith,et al.  Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. , 1999, Rheumatology.

[24]  E. A. Nelson,et al.  Systematic reviews of wound care management: (2). Dressings and topical agents used in the healing of chronic wounds. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[25]  Ad J. J. M. Vingerhoets,et al.  Quality of life assessment , 2001 .

[26]  J. Brazier,et al.  Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting. , 1997, Thorax.

[27]  Tara Symonds,et al.  Assessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient quality of life: introduction to the symposium, content overview, and definition of terms. , 2002, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[28]  B. Fridley,et al.  Practical Guidelines for Assessing the Clinical Significance of Health-Related Quality of Life Changes within Clinical Trials , 2003 .

[29]  M. Drummond.  Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[30]  D. Fairclough.  Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials , 2002, Quality of Life Research.

[31]  R. Hays,et al.  Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores , 2002 .

[32]  W. Tierney,et al.  Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire , 2002, Quality of Life Research.

[33]  D. Patrick,et al.  Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: a users' guide for clinicians. , 2002, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[34]  J. Brazier,et al.  What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[35]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Relation of Distribution- and Anchor-Based Approaches in Interpretation of Changes in Health-Related Quality of Life , 2001, Medical care.

[36]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[37]  Lewis E. Kazis,et al.  Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status , 1989, Medical care.

[38]  M. Liang,et al.  Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation , 1990, Medical care.

[39]  J. Ware.  SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide , 2003 .