1 Assessing the Minimally Important Difference in Health-Related Quality of Life Scores Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine October 25, 2006,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
An Overview of Minimally Important Difference Estimation in Health-Related Quality of Life Studies Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. October 14, 2004,
Advertisements

ASSESSING RESPONSIVENESS OF HEALTH MEASUREMENTS. Link validity & reliability testing to purpose of the measure Some examples: In a diagnostic instrument,
Assessment of Reliable Change: Methods and Assumptions Michael Basso, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Director of Clinical Training Department of Psychology—University.
15-minute Introduction to PROMIS Ron D. Hays, Ph.D UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research Roundtable Meeting on Measuring.
Why Patient-Reported Outcomes Are Important: Growing Implications and Applications for Rheumatologists Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine RAND.
T-tests Computing a t-test  the t statistic  the t distribution Measures of Effect Size  Confidence Intervals  Cohen’s d.
Pathway to Disability: The Nagi Model Courtney Hall, PT, PhD Atlanta VAMC Emory University.
Cross-Cultural Use of Measurements: Development of the Chinese SF-36 Health Survey Xinhua S. Ren, Ph.D. Boston University School of Public Health, Boston,
Correlation 2 Computations, and the best fitting line.
2000 IKDC SUBJECTIVE KNEE EVALUATION FORM
1 8/14/2015 Evaluating the Significance of Health-Related Quality of Life Change in Individual Patients Ron Hays October 8, 2004 UCLA GIM/HSR.
1 Health-Related Quality of Life Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. - UCLA Department of Medicine: Division of General Internal Medicine.
2 Accuracy and Precision Accuracy How close a measurement is to the actual or “true value” high accuracy true value low accuracy true value 3.
Performance of PROMIS® CATs Versus Short forms in Detecting Change Ron D. Hays October 3, 2011 International Association for Computer.
Primer on Evaluating Reliability and Validity of Multi-Item Scales Questionnaire Design and Testing Workshop October 25, 2013, 3:30-5:00pm Wilshire.
Measuring AgrAbility Outcomes with Quality of Life Indicators Robert A. Wilson, Ph.D., M.Sc. University of Delaware Center for Applied Demography and Survey.
Basic Methods for Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA/RAND ISOQOL Conference on.
“A Critical Look at Health-Related Quality of Life Measures” SGIM Annual Meeting Ron D. Hays May 2, 2003 (12:30-1:30 pm)
Quality Measures for Rehabilitation: Policy, Provider and Patient Perspectives Measuring Clinical Change: Quality Indicators ACRM-ASNR Pre-Conference Institute.
Is the Minimally Important Difference Really 0.50 of a Standard Deviation? Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. June 18, 2004.
Use of Health-Related Quality of Life Measures to Assess Individual Patients July 24, 2014 (1:00 – 2:00 PDT) Kaiser Permanente Methods Webinar Series Ron.
Patient-Centered Outcomes of Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research February 3, :00am – 12:00pm CHS 1 Ron D.Hays, Ph.D.
Health-Related Quality of Life as an Indicator of Quality of Care May 4, 2014 (8:30 – 11:30 PDT) HPM216: Quality Assessment/ Making the Business Case for.
SAS PROC IRT July 20, 2015 RCMAR/EXPORT Methods Seminar 3-4pm Acknowledgements: - Karen L. Spritzer - NCI (1U2-CCA )
New Drug Application Tolvaptan for the Treatment of Hyponatremia Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting June 25, 2008 Center.
1 10/12/2015 Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. November 27, 2002 (8:30-9:30.
EVIDENCE ABOUT DIAGNOSTIC TESTS Min H. Huang, PT, PhD, NCS.
Evaluating Health-Related Quality of Life Measures June 12, 2014 (1:00 – 2:00 PDT) Kaiser Methods Webinar Series Ron D.Hays, Ph.D.
Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine RAND Health Program UCLA Fielding School of Public Health
Development of Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores from PROMIS Global Items Ron D. Hays ( ) UCLA Department of Medicine
A Comprehensive Approach to the Measurement of Health Outcomes Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine.
Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life
Are Positive Experiences with Health Care Bad for Health? June 14, 2015 (AcademyHealth) Minneapolis Convention Center 1301 S. 2nd Avenue, Minneapolis,
Overview of Health-Related Quality of Life Measures May 22, 2014 (1:00 – 2:00 PDT) Kaiser Methods Webinar Series 1 Ron D.Hays, Ph.D.
Introductory Statistics Options, Spring 2008 Stat 100: MWF, 11:00 Science Center C. Stat 100: MWF, 11:00 Science Center C. –General intro to statistical.
Measurement Issues by Ron D. Hays UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research (June 30, 2008, 4:55-5:35pm) Diabetes & Obesity.
1 Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment as an Indicator of Quality of Care (HPM 216) Ron D. Hays April 11, 2013(8:30-11:30 am) Wilshire Blvd.
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services.
1 Session 6 Minimally Important Differences Dave Cella Dennis Revicki Jeff Sloan David Feeny Ron Hays.
Item Response Theory (IRT) Models for Questionnaire Evaluation: Response to Reeve Ron D. Hays October 22, 2009, ~3:45-4:05pm
Evaluating Self-Report Data Using Psychometric Methods Ron D. Hays, PhD February 6, 2008 (3:30-6:30pm) HS 249F.
EQ-5D and SF-36 Quality of Life Measures in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Comparisons with RA, Non-Inflammatory Disorders (NIRD), and Fibromyalgia (FM)
Assessing Responsiveness of Health Measurements Ian McDowell, INTA, Santiago, March 20, 2001.
Evaluating Self-Report Data Using Psychometric Methods Ron D. Hays, PhD February 8, 2006 (3:00-6:00pm) HS 249F.
Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. Joshua S. Malett, Sarah Gaillot, and Marc N. Elliott Physical Functioning Among Medicare Beneficiaries International Society for Quality.
Approaches for Estimating Minimally Important Differences Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. January 12, 2004 (8:50-9:10am) Minimal Clinically Important Differences in.
Measurement of Outcomes Ron D. Hays Accelerating eXcellence In translational Science (AXIS) January 17, 2013 (2:00-3:00 pm) 1720 E. 120 th Street, L.A.,
1 Bandit Thinkhamrop, PhD.(Statistics) Dept. of Biostatistics & Demography Faculty of Public Health Khon Kaen University Overview and Common Pitfalls in.
Item Response Theory Dan Mungas, Ph.D. Department of Neurology University of California, Davis.
Patient-Reported Physical Functioning Ron D. Hays November 27, 2012 (11:15-11:30) UCLA Department of Medicine MCID for Orthopaedic Devices Silver Springs,
Evaluating Health-Related Quality of Life Measures Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA GIM & HSR February 9, 2015 (9:00-11:50 am) HPM 214, Los Angeles, CA.
Estimating Minimally Important Differences on PROMIS Domain Scores Ron D. Hays UCLA Department of Medicine/Division of General Internal Medicine & Health.
Evaluating Multi-Item Scales Health Services Research Design (HS 225B) January 26, 2015, 1:00-3:00pm CHS.
Health-Related Quality of Life in Outcome Studies Ron D. Hays, Ph.D UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research GCRC Summer Session.
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) Assessment in Outcome Studies Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA/RAND GCRC Summer Course “The.
Critical Appraisal Course for Emergency Medicine Trainees Module 2 Statistics.
Psychometric Evaluation of Items Ron D. Hays
NIH: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Ron D. Hays Functional Vision and Visual Function November 10, 2016, 8:55-9:15am.
Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment in Outcome Studies
Correlations between observed patient-reported outcomes and disease activity scores at week 24. Correlations between observed patient-reported outcomes.
OR for baseline predictors of MDA at weeks 12, 24, 48, 96 and 144 by univariate analysis of observed data. OR for baseline predictors of MDA at weeks 12,
Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of Multi-Item Scales
Health-Related Quality of Life Measures (HS249T: Decision Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Division.
Estimating Minimally Important Differences (MIDs)
Introduction to Psychometric Analysis of Survey Data
Health-Related Quality of Life as an indicator of Quality of Care
Evaluating the Significance of Individual Change
GIM & HSR Research Seminar: October 5, 2018
UCLA Department of Medicine
Patient-reported Outcome Measures
Presentation transcript:

1 Assessing the Minimally Important Difference in Health-Related Quality of Life Scores Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine October 25, 2006, Franz Hall

2 Minimally Important Difference (MID) u One can observe a difference between two groups or within one group over time that is statistically significance but small. u With a large enough sample size, even a tiny difference could be statistically significant. u The MID is the smallest difference that we care about.

3 Distribution-Based “Estimation” of MID u Is not an estimate of the MID u Is raw score difference derived from prior information about the MID –e.g., D measure = ES * SD measure u Distribution-based formulas –Effect size (ES) = D/SD –Standardized Response Mean (SRM) = D/SD † –Responsiveness statistic (RS) = D/SD ‡ SD = baseline SD; SD † = SD of D; SD ‡ = SD of D among “unchanged”

4 Standard Error of Measurement u SEM = SD * SQRT (1-reliability) u 95% CI = Estimated true score +/ * SEM u 1 SEM = 0.50 SD when reliability is 0.75

5 Estimating the MID u External anchors –Self-report –Provider report –Clinical measure –Intervention u Anchor correlated with change on target measure at or higher u Anchor indicates “minimal” change

6 Hypothetical Change in Physical Function (T-score units) by magnitude of intervention

7 Getting Hit By Bike is > Minimal Getting Hit by Rock is Closer to MID

8 The following items are about activities you might do during a typical day. Does your health now limit you in these activities? If so, how much? 1. Vigorous activities, such as running, lifting heaving objects, participating in strenuous sports 2. Moderate activities, such as moving a table, pushing a vacuum cleaner, bowling, or playing golf 3. Lifting or carrying groceries 4. Climbing several flights of stairs 5. Climbing one flight of stairs 6. Bending, kneeling, or stooping 7. Walking more than a mile 8. Walking several blocks 9. Walking one block 10. Bathing or dressing yourself Yes, limited a lot (0)/Yes, limited a little (50)/No, not limited at all (0) Mean = 87; 75 th percentile = 100 for U.S. males

9 Change in Physical Function from Baseline Baseline = 100 (U.S. males mean = 87, SD = 20) - Hit by Rock causes me to be limited a little in vigorous activities and physical functioning drops to 95 ( SD) - Hit by Bike causes me to be limited a lot in vigorous activities, limited a little in moderate activities, and limited a lot in climbing several flights of stairs. Physical functioning drops to 75 ( SD)

10 Self-Report Anchor u People who report a “minimal” change u How is your physical health now compared to 4 weeks ago? u Much improved; Moderately Improved; u Minimally Improved; u No Change; u Minimally Worse; u Moderately Worse; Much Worse

11 Example with Multiple Anchors u 693 RA clinical trial participants evaluated at baseline and 6-weeks post-treatment. u Five anchors: –1) patient global self-report; –2) physician global report; –3) pain self-report; –4) joint swelling; –5) joint tenderness Kosinski, M. et al. (2000). Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 43,

12 Patient and Physician Global Reports u How the patient is doing, considering all the ways that RA affects him/here? Very good (asymptomatic and no limitation of normal activities) Good (mild symptoms and no limitation of normal activities) Fair (moderate symptoms and limitation of normal activities) Poor (severe symptoms and inability to carry out most normal activities) Very poor (very severe symptoms that are intolerable and inability to carry out normal activities) --> Improvement of 1 level over time

13 Global Pain, Joint Swelling and Tenderness u 0 = no pain, 10 = severe pain; 10 centimeter visual analog scale u Number of swollen and tender joints -> 1-20% improvement over time

14 Effect Sizes (mean = 0.34) for SF-36 Changes Linked to Minimal Change in Anchors ScaleSelf-RClin.-RPainSwellTenderMean PF Role-P Pain GH EWB Role-E SF EF PCS MCS

15 Use of “No Change” Group in Estimating MID Change #1 MID = ? Change #2 MID = ? Change #3 MID = 4 No Change on Anchor Doesn’t matter + 2 0, +1, or + 2 Minimal Change on Anchor

16 Change in SF-36 Scores Over Time (n = 54) Effect Size   Reliable Change Index

17 Concluding Thoughts u It is easier to conclude that a difference is clearly or obviously important than it is to say it is always unimportant. u No single best way to estimate MID –Use multiple anchors –Use anchors that represent minimum change u Wide variation in estimates of MID –Report range, inter-quartile range, and confidence intervals around mean estimates.

18

19 Formulas for Significance of Individual Change SEM 95% CI 1.96 * SD b * (1- reliability) 1/2 SEp 90% CI 1.64* SD b * (1- reliability 2 ) 1/2 SEp 95% CI 1.96* SD b * (1- reliability 2 ) 1/2 Estimated true score Mean + reliability (score – mean) Reliable change index X 2 -X 1 / SD b = standard deviation at baseline