Quality of Life Research

, Volume 25, Issue 9, pp 2213–2220 | Cite as

Quantifying clinical change: discrepancies between patients’ and providers’ perspectives

  • Rachel P. Dreyer
  • Philip G. Jones
  • Shelby Kutty
  • John A. Spertus



Interpreting the clinical significance of changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critically important. The most commonly used approach is to anchor mean changes on PRO scores against a global assessment of change. Whether the assessor of global change should be patients or their physicians is unknown. We compared patients’ and physicians’ assessments of change over time to examine which was more aligned with patients’ changes in PRO measures.


A total of 459 chronic heart failure patients aged >30 years were enrolled from 13 US centers. Data were obtained by medical record abstraction, physical assessments, and patient interviews at a baseline clinic visit and 6 weeks later. Health status was measured with the disease-specific Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), and both patients and physicians completed a validated 15-level global assessment of change, ranging from large deterioration to large improvement.


There was substantial variation between physicians/patients’ global assessment of clinical change (weighted kappa = 0.36, 95 % CI 0.28, 0.43). Overall, physician assessments were more strongly correlated with change on the KCCQ summary score than were patients’ assessments (physician R = 0.37, patient R = 0.29).


There was substantial variation between patients’ and physicians’ global assessment of 6-week change in heart failure status. Physician assessments of the importance of clinical changes were more strongly associated with changes in all domains of patient-reported health status, as assessed by the KCCQ, and may provide a more consistent method for defining the clinical importance of changes in patients’ health status.


Patient-reported outcome measures Heart failure Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical change 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Spertus is supported by grants from Gilead, Genentech, Lilly, Amorcyte, and EvaHeart, and has a copyright for the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Dr. Kutty is supported by a grant from the American Heart Association. All other authors report no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11136_2016_1267_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1854 kb)


  1. 1.
    Spertus, J. A. (2008). Evolving applications for patient-centered health status measures. Circulation, 118(20), 2103–2110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deshpande, P. R., Rajan, S., Sudeepthi, B. L., & Abdul Nazir, C. P. (2011). Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2(4), 137–144.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gliklich, R. E., Dreyer, N., Leavy, MB (Eds.). (2014). Use of patient-reported outcomes in registries. In I. Prepared by the Outcome DEcIDE Center Outcome Sciences, a Quintiles & c. u. C. N. TO7 (Eds.), Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: A user’s guide (3rd ed., Vol. 5). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rumsfeld, J. S., Alexander, K. P., Goff, D. C, Jr, Graham, M. M., Ho, P. M., Masoudi, F. A., et al. (2013). Cardiovascular health: The importance of measuring patient-reported health status: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 127(22), 2233–2249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flynn, K. E., Lin, L., Ellis, S. J., Russell, S. D., Spertus, J. A., Whellan, D. J., et al. (2009). Outcomes, health policy, and managed care: Relationships between patient-reported outcome measures and clinical measures in outpatients with heart failure. American Heart Journal, 158(4 Suppl), S64–S71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 4, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2009). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2015.
  8. 8.
    Hewlett, S. A. (2003). Patients and clinicians have different perspectives on outcomes in arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 30(4), 877–879.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cleeland, C. S., Sloan, J. A., & Group, A. O. (2010). Assessing the symptoms of cancer using patient-reported outcomes (ASCPRO): Searching for standards. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 39(6), 1077–1085.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bushmakin, A. G., Cappelleri, J. C., Taylor-Stokes, G., Sayers, J., Sadosky, A., Carroll, D., et al. (2011). Relationship between patient-reported disease severity and other clinical outcomes in osteoarthritis: A European perspective. Journal of Medical Economics, 14(4), 381–389.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pakhomov, S. V., Jacobsen, S. J., Chute, C. G., & Roger, V. L. (2008). Agreement between patient-reported symptoms and their documentation in the medical record. The American Journal of Managed Care, 14(8), 530–539.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Basch, E., Iasonos, A., McDonough, T., Barz, A., Culkin, A., Kris, M. G., et al. (2006). Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Results of a questionnaire-based study. The Lancet Oncology, 7(11), 903–909.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spertus, J. (2014). Barriers to the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 7(1), 2–4.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spertus, J., Peterson, E., Conard, M. W., Heidenreich, P. A., Krumholz, H. M., Jones, P., et al. (2005). Monitoring clinical changes in patients with heart failure: A comparison of methods. American Heart Journal, 150(4), 707–715.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brozek, J. L., Guyatt, G. H., & Schunemann, H. J. (2006). How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., Norman, G. R., & Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting, G. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 371–383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Willan, A., & Griffith, L. E. (1994). Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47(1), 81–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Green, C. P., Porter, C. B., Bresnahan, D. R., & Spertus, J. A. (2000). Development and evaluation of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: A new health status measure for heart failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 35(5), 1245–1255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ware, J, Jr, Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34(3), 220–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    EuroQol. (1990). EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spertus, J. A., Tooley, J., Jones, P., Poston, C., Mahoney, E., Deedwania, P., et al. (2002). Expanding the outcomes in clinical trials of heart failure: The quality of life and economic components of EPHESUS (EPlerenone’s neuroHormonal Efficacy and SUrvival Study). American Heart Journal, 143(4), 636–642.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berkanovic, E., Hurwicz, M. L., & Lachenbruch, P. A. (1995). Concordant and discrepant views of patients’ physical functioning. Arthritis Care and Research, 8(2), 94–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kwoh, C. K., O’Connor, G. T., Regan-Smith, M. G., Olmstead, E. M., Brown, L. A., Burnett, J. B., et al. (1992). Concordance between clinician and patient assessment of physical and mental health status. Journal of Rheumatology, 19(7), 1031–1037.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Neville, C., Clarke, A. E., Joseph, L., Belisle, P., Ferland, D., & Fortin, P. R. (2000). Learning from discordance in patient and physician global assessments of systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity. Journal of Rheumatology, 27(3), 675–679.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hidding, A., van Santen, M., De Klerk, E., Gielen, X., Boers, M., Geenen, R., et al. (1994). Comparison between self-report measures and clinical observations of functional disability in ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. Journal of Rheumatology, 21(5), 818–823.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jacobs, J. W., Oosterveld, F. G., Deuxbouts, N., Rasker, J. J., Taal, E., Dequeker, J., et al. (1992). Opinions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis about their own functional capacity: How valid is it? Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 51(6), 765–768.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Evangelou, E., Tsianos, G., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Doctors’ versus patients’ global assessments of treatment effectiveness: Empirical survey of diverse treatments in clinical trials. BMJ, 336(7656), 1287–1290.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spertus, J. (2008). Assessing patients’ improvement in clinical trials. BMJ, 336(7656), 1258–1259.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kamper, S. J., Maher, C. G., & Mackay, G. (2009). Global rating of change scales: A review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy, 17(3), 163–170.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel P. Dreyer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Philip G. Jones
    • 3
    • 4
  • Shelby Kutty
    • 5
  • John A. Spertus
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE)Yale-New Haven HospitalNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal MedicineYale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.School of Medicine, Biomedical and Health InformaticsUniversity of Missouri – Kansas CityKansas CityUSA
  4. 4.Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart InstituteUniversity of Missouri – Kansas CityKansas CityUSA
  5. 5.Department of PediatricsChildren’s Hospital and Medical CenterOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations