OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility, acceptability, discriminative validity, responsiveness, and minimal important difference (MID) of the SF-6D for people with spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: A total of 305 people with SCI completed the SF-36 health status questionnaire at baseline and at subsequent occurrence of a urinary tract infection (UTI) or 6-month follow-up. Normative SF-36 data were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. SF-36 scores were transformed to SF-6D utility values using Brazier's algorithm. We used UTI as the external criterion of clinically important change to determine responsiveness and two categories of the SF-36 transition question ("somewhat worse" and "somewhat better") as the external criterion to determine the MID. Derived SF-12 responsiveness was also assessed. RESULTS: The mean SF-6D values were: 0.68 (SD 0.21, n = 305) all patients; 0.66 (SD 0.19, n = 167) tetraplegia; 0.72 (SD 0.26, n = 138) paraplegia; 0.57 (SD 0.15, n = 138) with UTI. The Australian normative SF-6D mean value was 0.80 (SD 0.14, n = 18,005). The SF-6D was able to discriminate between SCI and the Australian normative sample (effect size [ES] = 0.86), tetraplegia-paraplegia (ES = 0.23), and it was responsive to UTI (ES = 0.86 SF-36 variant, ES = 0.92 SF-12 variant). The MID for respondents who reported being somewhat worse or somewhat better at follow-up was 0.03 (SD 0.17, n = 108/305), while the MID for only those who were somewhat worse was 0.10 (SD 0.14, n = 58). CONCLUSIONS: The content of the SF-6D is more appropriate than that of the SF-36 for this physically impaired population. The SF-6D has discriminative power and is responsive to clinically important change because of UTI. The MID is consistent with published estimates for other disease groups.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility, acceptability, discriminative validity, responsiveness, and minimal important difference (MID) of the SF-6D for people with spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: A total of 305 people with SCI completed the SF-36 health status questionnaire at baseline and at subsequent occurrence of a urinary tract infection (UTI) or 6-month follow-up. Normative SF-36 data were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. SF-36 scores were transformed to SF-6D utility values using Brazier's algorithm. We used UTI as the external criterion of clinically important change to determine responsiveness and two categories of the SF-36 transition question ("somewhat worse" and "somewhat better") as the external criterion to determine the MID. Derived SF-12 responsiveness was also assessed. RESULTS: The mean SF-6D values were: 0.68 (SD 0.21, n = 305) all patients; 0.66 (SD 0.19, n = 167) tetraplegia; 0.72 (SD 0.26, n = 138) paraplegia; 0.57 (SD 0.15, n = 138) with UTI. The Australian normative SF-6D mean value was 0.80 (SD 0.14, n = 18,005). The SF-6D was able to discriminate between SCI and the Australian normative sample (effect size [ES] = 0.86), tetraplegia-paraplegia (ES = 0.23), and it was responsive to UTI (ES = 0.86 SF-36 variant, ES = 0.92 SF-12 variant). The MID for respondents who reported being somewhat worse or somewhat better at follow-up was 0.03 (SD 0.17, n = 108/305), while the MID for only those who were somewhat worse was 0.10 (SD 0.14, n = 58). CONCLUSIONS: The content of the SF-6D is more appropriate than that of the SF-36 for this physically impaired population. The SF-6D has discriminative power and is responsive to clinically important change because of UTI. The MID is consistent with published estimates for other disease groups.
Authors: Dennis W Raisch; Heather M Campbell; David A Garnand; Mark A Jones; Mike R Sather; Rupali Naik; Walter Ling Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Annelies De Wolf; Amanda Lane-Brown; Robyn L Tate; James Middleton; Ian D Cameron Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-06-27 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ravishankar Jayadevappa; Stanley Bruce Malkowicz; Marsha Wittink; Alan J Wein; Sumedha Chhatre Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Lidia Engel; Stirling Bryan; Silvia M A A Evers; Carmen D Dirksen; Vanessa K Noonan; David G T Whitehurst Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Christopher A K Y Chong; Sicong Li; Geoffrey C Nguyen; Andrew Sutton; Michael H Levy; Tony Butler; Murray D Krahn; Hla-Hla Thein Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 3.186