Literature DB >> 32760755

Feasibility and Validity of Asking Patients to Define Individual Levels of Meaningful Change on Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Salene M W Jones1, Yuxian Du1,2, Ari Bell-Brown1, Kaylin Bolt3, Joseph M Unger1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used in clinical care to monitor treatment response. However, most guidelines on PRO use treat all patients the same. This study tested the feasibility and validity of a method for determining individually meaningful change in PRO measures.
METHODS: Participants (n=398) completed 12 pain and distress questions to define individually meaningful change. This mixed-methods study used both quantitative and qualitative analyses, including descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and content analysis.
RESULTS: Two-thirds (67%) of the sample reported at least one medical condition, including depression and back pain. Most participants (70%-90%) were able to answer the questions as intended. Participants varied widely in the amount of change they considered meaningful (coefficients of variation: 40%-99%). Higher symptom levels were associated with larger amounts of change considered meaningful and with greater likelihood of answering questions as intended. Participants reported a variety of reasons for why they considered an amount of change in pain or distress meaningful. The hypothetical nature of the questions and the need to reference previous questions was found to be confusing.
CONCLUSIONS: Asking patients to define an individual level for meaningful change on PROs was feasible and valid. Having patients define their own goals on PROs for treatment of pain or distress could make treatment more patient-centered.
© 2020 Aurora Health Care, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  distress; minimal clinically important difference; mixed methods; pain; patient-reported outcomes; qualitative; quantitative; treatment response

Year:  2020        PMID: 32760755      PMCID: PMC7398625          DOI: 10.17294/2330-0698.1742

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Patient Cent Res Rev        ISSN: 2330-068X


  23 in total

1.  Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  K W Wyrwich; W M Tierney; F D Wolinsky
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Clinimetrics Corner: The Minimal Clinically Important Change Score (MCID): A Necessary Pretense.

Authors:  Chad E Cook
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2008

3.  Clinimetrics corner: the Global Rating of Change Score (GRoC) poorly correlates with functional measures and is not temporally stable.

Authors:  Craig Garrison; Chad Cook
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2012-11

4.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

Authors:  R Jaeschke; J Singer; G H Guyatt
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-12

5.  Idio Scale Judgment: evaluation of a new method for estimating responder thresholds.

Authors:  Karon F Cook; Michael A Kallen; Cheryl D Coon; David Victorson; Deborah M Miller
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-06-17       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Testing minimal clinically important difference: additional comments and scientific reality testing.

Authors:  Robert J Gatchel; Tom G Mayer
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  A Meta-Analysis of Personalized Treatment Goals in Psychotherapy: A Preliminary Report and Call for More Studies.

Authors:  Oliver Lindhiem; Charles B Bennett; Trina E Orimoto; David J Kolko
Journal:  Clin Psychol (New York)       Date:  2015-06-17

8.  Global ratings of change do not accurately reflect functional change over time in clinical practice.

Authors:  John Schmitt; J Haxby Abbott
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 4.751

9.  The challenge of measuring intra-individual change in fatigue during cancer treatment.

Authors:  Carol M Moinpour; Gary W Donaldson; Kimberly M Davis; Arnold L Potosky; Roxanne E Jensen; Julie R Gralow; Anthony L Back; Jimmy J Hwang; Jihye Yoon; Debra L Bernard; Deena R Loeffler; Nan E Rothrock; Ron D Hays; Bryce B Reeve; Ashley Wilder Smith; Elizabeth A Hahn; David Cella
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Using Measurement-Based Care to Enhance Any Treatment.

Authors:  Kelli Scott; Cara C Lewis
Journal:  Cogn Behav Pract       Date:  2015-02
View more
  1 in total

1.  A Patient-Centered Evaluation of Meaningful Change on the 32-Item Motor Function Measure in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Using Qualitative and Quantitative Data.

Authors:  Tina Duong; Hannah Staunton; Jessica Braid; Aurelie Barriere; Ben Trzaskoma; Ling Gao; Tom Willgoss; Rosangel Cruz; Nicole Gusset; Ksenija Gorni; Sharan Randhawa; Lida Yang; Carole Vuillerot
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 4.003

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.