Literature DB >> 12206571

Use of the reliable change index to evaluate clinical significance in SF-36 outcomes.

Robert J Ferguson1, Amy B Robinson, Mark Splaine.   

Abstract

The SF-36 Health Survey is the most widely used self-report measure of functional health. It is commonly used in both randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-controlled evaluation of medical or other health services. However, determining a clinically significant change in SF-36 outcomes from pre-to-post-intervention, in contrast to statistically significant differences, is often not a focus of medical outcomes research. We propose use of the Reliable Change Index (RCI) in combination with SF-36 norms as one method for researchers, provider groups, and health care policy makers to determine clinically significant healthcare outcomes when the SF-36 is used as a primary measure. The RCI is a statistic that determines the magnitude of change score necessary of a given self-report measure to be considered statistically reliable. The RCI has been used to determine clinically significant change in mental health and behavioral medicine outcomes research, but is not widely applied to medical outcomes research. A usable table of RCIs for the SF-36 has been calculated and is presented. Instruction and a case illustration of how to use the RCI table is also provided. Finally, limitations and cautionary guidelines on using SF-36 norms and the RCI to determine clinically significant outcome are discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12206571     DOI: 10.1023/a:1016350431190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  15 in total

1.  Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: description, application, and alternatives.

Authors:  N S Jacobson; L J Roberts; S B Berns; J B McGlinchey
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1999-06

Review 2.  The measurement of health status in clinical practice.

Authors:  E C Nelson; D M Berwick
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Outcomes research: measuring the end results of health care.

Authors:  C M Clancy; J M Eisenberg
Journal:  Science       Date:  1998-10-09       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  Identifying meaningful intra-individual change standards for health-related quality of life measures.

Authors:  K W Wyrwich; F D Wolinsky
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.431

5.  Effectiveness in health care. An initiative to evaluate and improve medical practice.

Authors:  W L Roper; W Winkenwerder; G M Hackbarth; H Krakauer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1988-11-03       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Interpreting quality-of-life clinical trial data for use in the clinical practice of antihypertensive therapy.

Authors:  M A Testa
Journal:  J Hypertens Suppl       Date:  1987-02

7.  Comparison of health outcomes at a health maintenance organisation with those of fee-for-service care.

Authors:  J E Ware; R H Brook; W H Rogers; E B Keeler; A R Davies; C D Sherbourne; G A Goldberg; P Camp; J P Newhouse
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-05-03       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 8.  The status of health assessment 1994.

Authors:  J E Ware
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 21.981

9.  Patients at risk: health reform and risk adjustment.

Authors:  J P Newhouse
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 6.301

10.  The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups.

Authors:  C A McHorney; J E Ware; J F Lu; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  37 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.  Quantifying responsiveness of quality of life measures without an external criterion.

Authors:  Guang Yong Zou
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke.

Authors:  Sharon Barak; Pamela W Duncan
Journal:  NeuroRx       Date:  2006-10

4.  Effect of Breathwalk on body composition, metabolic and mood state in chronic hepatitis C patients with insulin resistance syndrome.

Authors:  M Vázquez-Vandyck; S Roman; J L Vázquez; L Huacuja; G Khalsa; R Troyo-Sanromán; A Panduro
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-12-14       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Measuring clinically meaningful change following mental health treatment.

Authors:  Susan V Eisen; Gayatri Ranganathan; Pradipta Seal; Avron Spiro
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-05-30       Impact factor: 1.505

6.  Substance Use Disorders Among Veterans in a Nationally Representative Sample: Prevalence and Associated Functioning and Treatment Utilization.

Authors:  Matthew Tyler Boden; Katherine J Hoggatt
Journal:  J Stud Alcohol Drugs       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.582

7.  Neurocognitive functioning and quality of life in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas treated on a phase Ib trial evaluating topotecan by convection-enhanced delivery.

Authors:  Jennifer A Oberg; Amie N Dave; Jeffrey N Bruce; Stephen A Sands
Journal:  Neurooncol Pract       Date:  2014-09

8.  Self-rated health and long-term prognosis of depression.

Authors:  Gilles Ambresin; Patty Chondros; Christopher Dowrick; Helen Herrman; Jane M Gunn
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 9.  Left Ventricular Assist Device Caregiver Experiences and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies.

Authors:  Megan M Streur; Jonathan P Auld; Ana Carolina Sauer Liberato; Jennifer A Beckman; Claudius Mahr; Elaine A Thompson; Cynthia M Dougherty
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 5.712

10.  Evaluation of a multi-disciplinary back pain rehabilitation programme--individual and group perspectives.

Authors:  Andrew Baird; Lisa Worral; Cheryl Haslam; Roger Haslam
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-02-16       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.