Literature DB >> 11936936

Group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life.

David Cella1, Monika Bullinger, Charles Scott, Ivan Barofsky.   

Abstract

This article focuses on the traversing of group and individual levels of quality-of-life data. A deductive approach is used to address the extent to which group data can be used to estimate clinical significance at the individual level. An inductive approach is used to evaluate the extent to which individual change data can be brought to the group level to define clinical significance. Both approaches have benefits and drawbacks. This article addresses how clinical significance can be defined for an individual when the threshold for meaningfulness is drawn from group data. It also addresses the condition under which one can use the same threshold difference for group vs individual differences or changes. A sample inductive approach explores the means to identify a clinically significant result or change, with use of insights from cognitive psychology. In most deductive approaches, the identification of a clinically significant difference or change requires identification of a criterion (or at least an interpretable anchor) against which the significance of a change in respondent score is compared.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11936936     DOI: 10.4065/77.4.384

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc        ISSN: 0025-6196            Impact factor:   7.616


  47 in total

1.  Cumulative and bidirectional association of physical activity and sedentary behaviour with health-related quality of life in adolescents.

Authors:  Abdou Y Omorou; Johanne Langlois; Edith Lecomte; Serge Briançon; Anne Vuillemin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments.

Authors:  Lori D McLeod; Joseph C Cappelleri; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 7.045

Review 3.  Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D.

Authors:  Stephen J Walters; John E Brazier
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Important Group Differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  David Cella; Robert J Motzer; Brian I Rini; Joseph C Cappelleri; Krishnan Ramaswamy; Subramanian Hariharan; Bhakti Arondekar; Andrew G Bushmakin
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes.

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich; Monika Bullinger; Neil Aaronson; Ron D Hays; Donald L Patrick; Tara Symonds
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: a summary for clinicians.

Authors:  Jeff A Sloan; Marlene H Frost; Rick Berzon; Amylou Dueck; Gordon Guyatt; Carol Moinpour; Mirjam Sprangers; Carol Ferrans; David Cella
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2006-06-23       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  Placing quality of life assessments on oncologists' agenda.

Authors:  Luzia Travado
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2006-08-26       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Responsiveness to change [corrected] due to supportive-expressive group therapy, improvement in mood and disease progression in women with metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Julie Lemieux; Dorcas E Beaton; Sheilah Hogg-Johnson; Louise J Bordeleau; Jon Hunter; Pamela J Goodwin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-05-15       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 9.  Psychological status in childhood cancer survivors: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Authors:  Lonnie K Zeltzer; Christopher Recklitis; David Buchbinder; Bradley Zebrack; Jacqueline Casillas; Jennie C I Tsao; Qian Lu; Kevin Krull
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-03-02       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Defining multiple criteria for meaningful outcome in routine outcome measurement using the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales.

Authors:  Alberto Parabiaghi; Hans E Kortrijk; Cornelis L Mulder
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 4.328

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.