Separating gains and losses in health when calculating the minimum important difference for mapped utility measures
To estimate the minimum important difference (MID) for a variety of mapped utility measures and to determine whether patients perceiving gains and losses in health status should be treated equally when calculating the MID.
A longitudinal study within a California managed care population of 6,932 patients was retrospectively analyzed. Utilities were derived from the SF-36 short-form health survey using multiple validated mapping methods. Absolute utility changes for patients who considered their current health as ‘somewhat better’ or ‘somewhat worse’ in the prior year were compared to determine if gains and losses in utility values could be combined. The MIDs were calculated and compared using anchor- and distribution-based methods.
Two thousand one hundred patients reported ‘somewhat better’ or ‘somewhat worse’ health in the first year. When combining these patients, the average MID for all mapped utility measures was 0.03 (SD = 0.1), a magnitude similar to that identified by Walters. However, when separated, the mean MID utility change for those reporting ‘somewhat better’ and ‘somewhat worse’ health was 0.02 (SD = 0.1) and −0.06 (SD = 0.1), respectively (P < 0.0001).
Researchers should consider the effects of combining gains and losses when determining utility MID values.
KeywordsMinimum important difference Preference-based measures SF-6D Utility Quality adjusted life year Utility mapping
Chronic Disease Score
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy
Food and Drug Administration
Health-related quality of life
Health Utilities Index Mark 2
Minimum important difference
Quality-adjusted life year
Standard error of measurement
Visual analog scale
- 1.Food and Drug Administration. (FDA) (2006). Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcomes measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. FDA, Rockville, MD. Available online at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.pdf#search=%91draft%20guidance%20fda%20patient%20reported%20outcomes’
- 3.Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Rusell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 8.Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 861–873. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00071-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 21.Ware, J. E., & Kosinski, M. (2001). The SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales. A manual for users of version 1, 2nd edn. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.Google Scholar
- 24.Yost, K. J., Cella, D., Chawla, A., Holmgren, E., Eton, T., Ayanian, J. Z., West, D. W. (2005). Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 1241–1251. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Wyrwich, K. W., Metz, S. M., Babu, A. N., Kroenke, K., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (2002). The reliability of retrospective change assessments. Quality of Life Research, 11(7), 636.Google Scholar