Literature DB >> 12059128

The clinical significance of quality-of-life results: practical considerations for specific audiences.

Tara Symonds1, Rick Berzon, Patrick Marquis, Teresa A Rummans.   

Abstract

This is the sixth article in a series intended to summarize the state of the science for assessing the clinical significance of quality-of-life (QOL) assessments. The previous 5 articles dealt with specific methodological issues, whereas this article addresses practical considerations in implementing the methods and presenting the results to various audiences with differing perspectives. Proposals for how to interpret the "clinical significance" or "clinical meaningfulness" of changes in QOL scores were addressed in previous articles within this series. Within this article, 4 audiences-patients and physicians, clinical researchers, health policymakers, and private- and public-sector employees who work in health-related fields-are examined because each is a unique stakeholder with a distinct vantage point and each can interpret QOL outcomes differently. A clinician may attempt to explain to a patient potential treatment alternatives for his or her QOL; a health policymaker may try to describe to elected officials the financial impact on a patient population with reduced QOL; a researcher may try to obtain the vital messages from a clinical trial that included QOL end points; and a regulatory agency and/or pharmaceutical company may try to ascertain the appropriate level of evidence required for a successful research study. For each of the 4 audiences, concrete examples and practical guidelines are offered by which changes in QOL outcomes can be interpreted meaningfully. Ultimately, both determining and disseminating the meaning of clinical significance are functions of the outlook of the audience because the perspective of the audience determines its ability to comprehend, evaluate, and convey the context within which such outcomes appear meaningful. Among the audiences described within this article, a commonality of interests exist that mandates a careful exposition of the scientific rigor involved in describing the clinical significance of QOL assessments. Collectively, this series attempts to provide methods and means for making such determinations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12059128     DOI: 10.4065/77.6.572

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


  16 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

3.  The quality of life of parents of children with atopic dermatitis: interpretation of PIQoL-AD scores.

Authors:  D M Meads; S P McKenna; K Kahler
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  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

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

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

6.  Clinically meaningful improvement on the Self-Esteem And Relationship questionnaire in men with erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Joseph C Cappelleri; Stanley E Althof; Michael P O'Leary; Sidney Glina; Rosie King; Vera J Stecher; Martin Carlsson; Richard L Siegel
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-07-07       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  A comparison of clinically important differences in health-related quality of life for patients with chronic lung disease, asthma, or heart disease.

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich; William M Tierney; Ajit N Babu; Kurt Kroenke; Fredric D Wolinsky
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 8.  Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures.

Authors:  K W Wyrwich; J M Norquist; W R Lenderking; S Acaster
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 9.  North Central Cancer Treatment Group--achievements and perspectives.

Authors:  Axel Grothey; Alex A Adjei; Steve R Alberts; Edith A Perez; Kurt A Jaeckle; Charles L Loprinzi; Daniel J Sargent; Jeff A Sloan; Jan C Buckner
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.929

10.  Psychometric validation of the italian translation of the gastrointestinal symptom-rating scale and quality of life in reflux and dyspepsia questionnaire in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Károly R Kulich; Carlo Calabrese; Franco Pacini; Sergio Vigneri; Jonas Carlsson; Ingela K Wiklund
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.859

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.