Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Ga naar:
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
BSL Shop
Inloggen

Welkom bij Erasmus MC & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Erasmus MC heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

» Andere revante producten voor Erasmus MC studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van Erasmus MC, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van Erasmus MC.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

07-04-2023 | Editorial

Introduction to the special section: “Methodologies and considerations for meaningful change”

Auteurs: Andrew Trigg, William R. Lenderking, Jan R. Boehnke

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2023

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Extract

The determination of what constitutes a ‘meaningful change’ on a health outcome measure remains controversial in both methodological and applied research. Motivated by the question of how to understand the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions or the natural history of conditions better [1, 2], the concept builds on the widely held belief that statistical significance in itself is not sufficient to establish a treatment benefit [3, 4]. Since health-related quality of life (HRQL) research should reflect patients' perceptions and evaluations, the topic is of immense theoretical, statistical, and practical relevance. It was therefore timely to offer a space to present discussions, methods, and questions related to this topic, even as new methods and interpretive standards emerge. …
volgende artikel Common methods of determining meaningful change in clinical practice: implications for precision patient-reported outcomes
Literatuur
1.
Reeve, B. B., Wyrwich, K. W., Wu, A. W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C. B., Snyder, C. F., Schwartz, C., Revicki, D. A., Moinpour, C. M., McLeod, L. D., & Lyons, J. C. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 1889–1905.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Wyrwich, K. W., Norquist, J. M., Lenderking, W. R., Acaster, S., The Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL). (2013). Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 22(3), 475–483.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Terwee, C. B., Peipert, J. D., Chapman, R., Lai, J. S., Terluin, B., Cella, D., Griffith, P., & Mokkink, L. B. (2021). Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures. Quality of Life Research, 30(10), 2729–2754.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
6.
Musoro, Z. J., Hamel, J. F., Ediebah, D. E., Cocks, K., King, M. T., Groenvold, M., Sprangers, M. A., Brandberg, Y., Velikova, G., Maringwa, J., & Flechtner, H. H. (2018). Establishing anchor-based minimally important differences (MID) with the EORTC quality-of-life measures: a meta-analysis protocol. British Medical Journal Open, 8(1), e019117.
7.
Trigg, A., & Griffiths, P. (2021). Triangulation of multiple meaningful change thresholds for patient-reported outcome scores. Quality of Life Research, 30(10), 2755–2764.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Staunton, H., Willgoss, T., Nelsen, L., Burbridge, C., Sully, K., Rofail, D., & Arbuckle, R. (2019). An overview of using qualitative techniques to explore and define estimates of clinically important change on clinical outcome assessments. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes., 3(1), 16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Cocks, K., King, M. T., Velikova, G., de Castro Jr, G., St-James, M. M., Fayers, P. M., & Brown, J. M. (2012). Evidence-based guidelines for interpreting change scores for the European organisation for the research and treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire core 30. European Journal of Cancer., 48(11), 1713–1722.CrossRefPubMed
10.
King, M. T. (2011). A point of minimal important difference (MID): A critique of terminology and methods. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research., 11(2), 171–184.CrossRef
11.
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Controlled Clinical Trials., 10(4), 407–415.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Ostelo, R. W., Beckerman, H., Knol, D. L., & Bouter, L. M. (2006). Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: Distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4(1), 54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 04] Available from: https://​www.​fda.​gov/​media/​77832/​download
15.
Blampied, N. M. (2022). Reliable change and the reliable change index: still useful after all these years? The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 15, e50.CrossRef
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Bartlett, S. J., Bykerk, V. P., Schieir, O., Valois, M. F., Pope, J. E., Boire, G., Hitchon, C., Hazlewood, G., Bessette, L., Keystone, E., & Thorne, C. (2022). “From Where I Stand”: using multiple anchors yields different benchmarks for meaningful improvement and worsening in the rheumatoid arthritis flare questionnaire (RA-FQ). Quality Life Research. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11136-022-03227-7CrossRef
21.
22.
23.
24.
Griffiths, P., Sims, J., Williams, A., Williamson, N., Cella, D., Brohan, E., & Cocks, K. (2022). How strong should my anchor be for estimating group and individual level meaningful change? A simulation study assessing anchor correlation strength and the impact of sample size, distribution of change scores and methodology on establishing a true meaningful change threshold. Quality Life Research. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11136-022-03286-wCrossRef
25.
Griffiths, P., Terluin, B., Trigg, A., Schuller, W., & Bjorner, J. B. (2022). A confirmatory factor analysis approach was found to accurately estimate the reliability of transition ratings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology., 141, 36–45.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Qin, S., Nelson, L., Williams, N., Williams, V., Bender, R., & McLeod, L. (2022). Comparison of anchor-based methods for estimating thresholds of meaningful within-patient change using simulated PROMIS PF 20a data under various joint distribution characteristic conditions. Quality Life Research. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11136-022-03285-xCrossRef
28.
29.
30.
31.
Beckerman, H., Roebroeck, M. E., Lankhorst, G. J., Becher, J. G., Bezemer, P. D., & Verbeek, A. L. M. (2001). Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 10(7), 571–578.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
34.
35.
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure ‘change’: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin., 74(1), 68–80.CrossRef
36.
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.
37.
Vanier, A., Sébille, V., Blanchin, M., & Hardouin, J. B. (2021). The minimal perceived change: A formal model of the responder definition according to the patient’s meaning of change for patient-reported outcome data analysis and interpretation. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21(1), 128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Gerlinger, C., & Schmelter, T. (2011). Determining the non-inferiority margin for patient reported outcomes: Determining the non-inferiority margin for patient reported outcomes. Pharmaceut Statistics, 10(5), 410–413.CrossRef
39.
40.
Sabah, S. A., Alvand, A., Beard, D. J., & Price, A. J. (2022). Minimal important changes and differences were estimated for Oxford hip and knee scores following primary and revision arthroplasty. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology., 143, 159–168.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Bell, M. L., Dhillon, H. M., Bray, V. J., & Vardy, J. L. (2018). Important differences and meaningful changes for the functional assessment of cancer therapy-cognitive function (FACT-Cog). Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2(1), 48.CrossRefPubMedCentral
42.
Vanier, A., Leroy, M., & Hardouin, J. B. (2022). Toward a rigorous assessment of the statistical performances of methods to estimate the minimal important difference of patient-reported outcomes: A protocol for a large-scale simulation study. Methods, 204, 396–409.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Fisher, A. J., Medaglia, J. D., & Jeronimus, B. F. (2018). Lack of group-to-individual generalizability is a threat to human subjects research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences., 115(27), E6106–E6115.CrossRef
44.
Harvill, L. M. (1991). An NCME instructional module on standard error of measurement. Educational Measure: Issues Practice, 10(2), 33–41.
45.
McAleavey AA. When (Not) to Rely on the Reliable Change Index [Internet]. Open Science Framework; 2021 Nov [cited 2023 Feb 25]. Available from: https://​osf.​io/​3kthg
46.
Molenaar, P., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science., 18(2), 112–117.CrossRef
47.
De Smet M, Acke E, Cornelis S, Truijens F, Notaerts L, Reitske Meganck, et al. Understanding ‘patient deterioration’ in psychotherapy from patients’ perspectives: A mixed methods multiple case study. 2022 [cited 2023 Feb 25]; Available from: https://​rgdoi.​net/​https://​doi.​org/​10.​13140/​RG.​2.​2.​17796.​60802
48.
Desmet, M., Van Nieuwenhove, K., De Smet, M., Meganck, R., Deeren, B., Van Huele, I., Decock, E., Raemdonck, E., Cornelis, S., Truijens, F., & Zeuthen, K. (2021). What too strict a method obscures about the validity of outcome measures. Psychotherapy Research., 31(7), 882–894.CrossRefPubMed
49.
McClimans, L. (2011). Interpretability, validity, and the minimum important difference. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics., 32(6), 389–401.CrossRefPubMed
50.
McClimans, L. M. (2021). First person epidemiological measures: Vehicles for patient centered care. Synthese, 198(S10), 2521–2537.CrossRef
51.
Truijens, F. L., Desmet, M., De Coster, E., Uyttenhove, H., Deeren, B., & Meganck, R. (2019). When quantitative measures become a qualitative storybook: A phenomenological case analysis of validity and performativity of questionnaire administration in psychotherapy research. Qualitative Research in Psychology., 19(1), 244–287.CrossRef
52.
Truijens, F. L., Van Nieuwenhove, K., De Smet, M. M., Desmet, M., & Meganck, R. (2021). How questionnaires shape experienced symptoms A qualitative case comparison study of questionnaire administration in psychotherapy research. Qualitative Research in Psychology., 19(3), 806–830.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Introduction to the special section: “Methodologies and considerations for meaningful change”
Auteurs
Andrew Trigg
William R. Lenderking
Jan R. Boehnke
Publicatiedatum
07-04-2023
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03413-1

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2023

Using qualitative methods to establish the clinically meaningful threshold for treatment success in alopecia areata

  • Special Section: Methodologies for Meaningful Change

Comparison of anchor-based methods for estimating thresholds of meaningful within-patient change using simulated PROMIS PF 20a data under various joint distribution characteristic conditions

  • Special Section: Methodologies for Meaningful Change

Comparison of raw and regression approaches to capturing change on patient-reported outcome measures

  • Special Section: Methodologies for Meaningful Change

Minimally important changes do not always reflect minimally important change; moreover, there is no need for them

  • Letter to the Editor

Correction: Likely change indexes improve estimates of individual change on patient‑reported outcomes

  • Correction

Common methods of determining meaningful change in clinical practice: implications for precision patient-reported outcomes

  • Special Section: Methodologies for Meaningful Change