S Wiebe1, S Matijevic, M Eliasziw, P A Derry. 1. Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. swiebe@uwo.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognised as an important outcome in epilepsy. However, interpretation of HRQOL data is difficult because there is no agreement on what constitutes a clinically important change in the scores of the various instruments. OBJECTIVES: To determine the minimum clinically important change, and small, medium, and large changes, in broadly used epilepsy specific and generic HRQOL instruments. METHODS: Patients with difficult to control focal epilepsy (n = 136) completed the QOLIE-89, QOLIE-31, SF-36, and HUI-III questionnaires twice, six months apart. Patient centred estimates of minimum important change, and of small, medium, and large change, were assessed on self administered 15 point global rating scales. Using regression analysis, the change in each HRQOL instrument that corresponded to the various categories of change determined by patients was obtained. The results were validated in a subgroup of patients tested at baseline and at nine months. RESULTS: The minimum important change was 10.1 for QOLIE-89, 11.8 for QOLIE-31, 4.6 for SF-36 MCS, 3.0 for SF-36 physical composite score, and 0.15 for HUI-III. All instruments differentiated between no change and minimum important change with precision, and QOLIE-89 and QOLIE-31 also distinguished accurately between minimum important change and medium or large change. Baseline HRQOL scores and the type of treatment (surgical or medical) had no impact on any of the estimates, and the results were replicated in the validation sample. CONCLUSIONS: These estimates of minimum important change, and small, medium, and large changes, in four HRQOL instruments in patients with epilepsy are robust and can distinguish accurately among different levels of change. The estimates allow for categorisation of patients into various levels of change in HRQOL, and will be of use in assessing the effect of interventions in individual patients.
BACKGROUND: Health related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognised as an important outcome in epilepsy. However, interpretation of HRQOL data is difficult because there is no agreement on what constitutes a clinically important change in the scores of the various instruments. OBJECTIVES: To determine the minimum clinically important change, and small, medium, and large changes, in broadly used epilepsy specific and generic HRQOL instruments. METHODS:Patients with difficult to control focal epilepsy (n = 136) completed the QOLIE-89, QOLIE-31, SF-36, and HUI-III questionnaires twice, six months apart. Patient centred estimates of minimum important change, and of small, medium, and large change, were assessed on self administered 15 point global rating scales. Using regression analysis, the change in each HRQOL instrument that corresponded to the various categories of change determined by patients was obtained. The results were validated in a subgroup of patients tested at baseline and at nine months. RESULTS: The minimum important change was 10.1 for QOLIE-89, 11.8 for QOLIE-31, 4.6 for SF-36 MCS, 3.0 for SF-36 physical composite score, and 0.15 for HUI-III. All instruments differentiated between no change and minimum important change with precision, and QOLIE-89 and QOLIE-31 also distinguished accurately between minimum important change and medium or large change. Baseline HRQOL scores and the type of treatment (surgical or medical) had no impact on any of the estimates, and the results were replicated in the validation sample. CONCLUSIONS: These estimates of minimum important change, and small, medium, and large changes, in four HRQOL instruments in patients with epilepsy are robust and can distinguish accurately among different levels of change. The estimates allow for categorisation of patients into various levels of change in HRQOL, and will be of use in assessing the effect of interventions in individual patients.
Authors: A L Stewart; S Greenfield; R D Hays; K Wells; W H Rogers; S D Berry; E A McGlynn; J E Ware Journal: JAMA Date: 1989-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J T Langfitt; B G Vickrey; M P McDermott; S Messing; A T Berg; S S Spencer; M R Sperling; C W Bazil; S Shinnar Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Sebastian E Baumeister; Lillian Gelberg; Barbara D Leake; Julia Yacenda-Murphy; Mani Vahidi; Ronald M Andersen Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Hilary H Colwell; Susan D Mathias; Michelle P Turner; John Lu; Nicola Wright; Marc Peeters; David Cella; Giovanna Devercelli Journal: Oncologist Date: 2010-02-26
Authors: Peggy E Millson; Laurel Challacombe; Paul J Villeneuve; Benedikt Fischer; Carol J Strike; Ted Myers; Ron Shore; Shaun Hopkins; Sara Raftis; Mary Pearson Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2004 Mar-Apr