SF-6D utility index as measure of minimally important difference in health status change

被引:13
作者
Gandhi, Pranav K. [1 ]
Ried, L. Douglas [1 ]
Bibbey, Alex [2 ]
Huang, I-Chan [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Coll Pharm, Gainesville, FL USA
[2] Univ Florida, Coll Med, Gainesville, FL USA
关键词
SF-6D; minimally important differences; global rating of change; hypertension; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; HYPERTENSION TREATMENT STRATEGY; VERAPAMIL SR-TRANDOLAPRIL; CORONARY-ARTERY-DISEASE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; CALCIUM-ANTAGONIST; CANCER; QUESTIONNAIRE; THERAPY; ANCHOR;
D O I
10.1331/JAPhA.2012.10114
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Objectives: To combine anchor- and distribution-based approaches to identify minimally important differences (MIDs) for the short-form six-dimension utility index (SF-6D) and to identify variables associated with self-reported health status change. Design: Descriptive, exploratory, nonexperimental study. Setting: United States between April 1, 1999, and October 31, 1999. Patients: 2,317 participants of SADD-Sx (Study of Antihypertensive Drugs and Depressive Symptoms), aged 50 years or older and with hypertension and coronary artery disease. Intervention: Patients were randomized into a verapamil SR- or atenolol-led hypertensive treatment strategy and mailed baseline and 1-year surveys. Main outcome measure: SF-6D utility scores for patients completing both surveys. Results: The pooled mean (+/- SD) MID change on the SF-6D of patients whose health status minimally changed was 0.035 +/- 0.095. The anchor-based change scores had a median value of 0.036 (interquartile range -0.03 to 0.10). One-third and one-half of the SD of SF-6D change scores were 0.035 and 0.053, respectively. Whites were less likely to report minimally improved health status compared with nonwhites (odds ratio 0.59 [95% CI 0.40-0.88]). Change in SF-6D scores improved prediction of health status change. Conclusion: We recommend using the MID range based on all patients combined (-0.03 to 0.10) to interpret SF-6D scores. These estimates can be used in conjunction with other measures of efficacy to determine meaningful changes. SF-6D demonstrates potential utility in predicting minimally important improvement or worsening among patients receiving different pharmacologic medications.
引用
收藏
页码:34 / 42
页数:9
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 [J].
Brazier, J ;
Roberts, J ;
Deverill, M .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 21 (02) :271-292
[2]   Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey [J].
Brazier, J ;
Usherwood, T ;
Harper, R ;
Thomas, K .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1998, 51 (11) :1115-1128
[3]   Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales [J].
Cella, D ;
Eton, DT ;
Lai, JS ;
Peterman, AH ;
Merkel, DE .
JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2002, 24 (06) :547-561
[4]   Living status and psychological well-being: Social comparison as a moderator in later life [J].
Cheng, Sheung-Tak ;
Fung, Helene H. ;
Chan, Alfred C. M. .
AGING & MENTAL HEALTH, 2008, 12 (05) :654-661
[5]   THE EFFECTS OF ANTIHYPERTENSIVE THERAPY ON THE QUALITY-OF-LIFE [J].
CROOG, SH ;
LEVINE, S ;
TESTA, MA ;
BROWN, B ;
BULPITT, CJ ;
JENKINS, CD ;
KLERMAN, GL ;
WILLIAMS, GH .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1986, 314 (26) :1657-1664
[6]   A Note on the Calculation and Interpretation of the Delta-p Statistic for Categorical Independent Variables [J].
Cruce, Ty M. .
RESEARCH IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2009, 50 (06) :608-622
[7]   A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale [J].
Eton, DT ;
Cella, D ;
Yost, KJ ;
Yount, SE ;
Peterman, AH ;
Neuberg, DS ;
Sledge, GW ;
Wood, WC .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2004, 57 (09) :898-910
[8]   ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED CANCER [J].
GOUGH, IR ;
FURNIVAL, CM ;
SCHILDER, L ;
GROVE, W .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER & CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1983, 19 (08) :1161-1165
[9]   Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures [J].
Guyatt, GH ;
Osoba, D ;
Wu, AW ;
Wyrwich, KW ;
Norman, GR .
MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS, 2002, 77 (04) :371-383
[10]  
Hays Ron D, 2005, COPD, V2, P63