Abstract
Background: The SF-6D and EQ-5D are both preference-based measures of health. Empirical work is required to determine what the smallest change is in utility scores that can be regarded as important and whether this change in utility value is constant across measures and conditions. Objectives: To use distribution and anchor-based methods to determine and compare the minimally important difference (MID) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D for various datasets. Methods: The SF-6D is scored on a 0.29–1.00 scale and the EQ-5D on a −0.59–1.00 scale, with a score of 1.00 on both, indicating ‘full health’. Patients were followed for a period of time, then asked, using question 2 of the SF-36 as our anchor, if their general health is much better (5), somewhat better (4), stayed the same (3), somewhat worse (2) or much worse (1) compared to the last time they were assessed. We considered patients whose global rating score was 4 or 2 as having experienced some change equivalent to the MID. This paper describes and compares the MID and standardised response mean (SRM) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D from eight longitudinal studies in 11 patient groups that used both instruments. Results: From the 11 reviewed studies, the MID for the SF-6D ranged from 0.011 to 0.097, mean 0.041. The corresponding SRMs ranged from 0.12 to 0.87, mean 0.39 and were mainly in the ‘small to moderate’ range using Cohen’s criteria, supporting the MID results. The mean MID for the EQ-5D was 0.074 (range −0.011–0.140) and the SRMs ranged from −0.05 to 0.43, mean 0.24. The mean MID for the EQ-5D was almost double that of the mean MID for the SF-6D. Conclusions: There is evidence that the MID for these two utility measures are not equal and differ in absolute values. The EQ-5D scale has approximately twice the range of the SF-6D scale. Therefore, the estimates of the MID for each scale appear to be proportionally equivalent in the context of the range of utility scores for each scale. Further empirical work is required to see whether or not this holds true for other utility measures, patient groups and populations.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
JA Sloan D Cella M Frost et al. (2002) ArticleTitleAssessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient quality of life: Introduction to the symposium, content overview, and definition of terms Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID4 367–370 Occurrence Handle11936934
GH Guyatt D Osoba AW Wu KW Wyrwich GR. Norman (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID4 371–383 Occurrence Handle11936935
D Cella M Bullinger C Scott I. Barofsky (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meting Group. Group vs. individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID4 384–392 Occurrence Handle11936936
JA Sloan N Aaronson JC Cappelleri DL Fairclough C. Varricchio (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID5 479–487 Occurrence Handle12004998
MH Frost AE Bonomi CE Ferrans GY Wong RD. Hays (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores. Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID5 488–494 Occurrence Handle12004999
MA Sprangers CM Moinpour TJ Moynihan DL Patrick DA. Revicki (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: A users’ guide for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID6 561–571 Occurrence Handle12059127
T Symonds R Berzon P Marquis TA. Rummans (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. The clinical significance of quality-of-life results: Practical considerations for specific audiences. Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID6 572–583 Occurrence Handle12059128
PM Fayers DM. Machin (2000) Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis & Interpretation Wiley Chichester.
R Jaeschke J Singer GH. Guyatt (1989) ArticleTitleMeasurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Contr Clin Trials. 10 407–415 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By%2BC3cjks1c%3D
J Sloan T Symonds D Vargas-Chanes B. Fridley (2003) ArticleTitlePractical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials Drug Inf J. 37 IssueID1 23–31
EF Juniper GH Guyatt A Willan LE. Griffith (1994) ArticleTitleDetermining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life questionnaire J Clin Epidemiol. 47 IssueID1 81–87 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByuC3M%2FotVY%3D Occurrence Handle8283197
GR Norman FG Sridhar GH Guyatt SD. Walter (2001) ArticleTitleThe relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health related quality of life Med Care. 39 IssueID10 1039–1047 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00005650-200110000-00002 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MritVSksQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11567167
J. Cohen (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. EditionNumber2 Lawrence Erlbaum Mahwah, NJ
GR Norman P Stratford G. Regehr (1997) ArticleTitleMethodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach J Clin Epidemiol. 50 IssueID8 869–879 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiH3sjjtlw%3D Occurrence Handle9291871
JE Brazier JF Roberts MD. Deverill (2002) ArticleTitleThe estimation of a preference based measure of health from the SF-36 Health Econ. 21 271–292
Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A social tariff for the EuroQol: Results from a UK general population survey. Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper No. 138. York: University of York, 1995
JE Ware SuffixJr KK Snow M Kosinski B. Gandek (1993) SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre Boston, MA
SJ Walters CJ Morrell S. Dixon (1999) ArticleTitleMeasuring health-related quality of life in patients with venous leg ulcers Qual Life Res. 8 IssueID4 327–336 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1MvgtFertw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10472165
KJ Thomas H MacPherson L Thorpe et al. (2003) Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture to patients with chronic low back pain. Report to NCCHTA SchARR, University of Sheffield Sheffield, UK
S. Allard (2000) NAME IT Study Group. Phase IIIB. IV Clinical Study Report of a Double-Blind, Randomised, Controlled Study to Compare Methotrexate plus Neoral® versus Methotrexate plus Placebo in Subjects with Early Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Novartis Pharma Basel, Switzerland
M Burton S Walters M Saleh J. Brazier (2003) An Evaluation of Health Status Measures in Lower Limb Trauma. Report for Trent Regional Health Authority University of Sheffield Sheffield, UK
RL Akehurst JE Brazier N Mathers et al. (2002) ArticleTitleHealth-related quality of life and cost impact of irritable bowel syndrome in a UK primary care setting Pharmacoeconomics. 20 IssueID7 455–462 Occurrence Handle12093301
EA Lacey SJ. Walters (2003) ArticleTitleContinuing inequality: Gender and social class influences on self-perceived health after a heart attack J Epidemiol Commun Health. 57 622–627 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3szltFWntg%3D%3D
JE Brazier R Harper JF Munro SJ Walters ML. Snaith (1999) ArticleTitleGeneric and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee Rheumathology. 38 870–877 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1MvktlKksA%3D%3D
R Harper JE Brazier JC Waterhouse SJ Walters NMB Jones P. Howard (1997) ArticleTitleComparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting Thorax. 52 879–887 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FmvVWrtA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9404375
LE Kazis JJ Anderson RF. Meenan (1989) ArticleTitleEffect sizes for interpreting changes in health status Med Care. 27 IssueID3 S178–S189 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiaC2Mfjt1U%3D Occurrence Handle2646488
MH Liang AH Fossel MG. Larson (1990) ArticleTitleComparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopaedic Evaluation Med Care. 28 IssueID7 632–642 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By%2BA3cbktlQ%3D Occurrence Handle2366602
GR Norman JA Sloan KW. Wyrwich (2003) ArticleTitleInterpretation of changes in health related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation Med Care. 41 IssueID5 582–592 Occurrence Handle12719681
M Ryan DA Scott C Reeves A Bate ER Teijlingen Particlevan EM Russell M Napper CM. Robb (2001) ArticleTitleEliciting public preferences for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques Health Technol Assess. 5 IssueID5 1–186 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7mtlaktw%3D%3D
J Brazier M Deverill C Green R Harper A. Booth (1999) ArticleTitleA review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation Health Technol Assess. 3 IssueID9 1–164
KW Wyrwich SM Metz AN Babu K Kroenke WM Tierney FD. Wolinsky (2002) ArticleTitleThe reliability of retrospective change assessments Qual Life Res. 11 IssueID7 636
SJ Walters JE. Brazier (2003) ArticleTitleWhat is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D Health Qual Life Outcomes. 1 IssueID4 1–8 Occurrence Handle12605709
TV. Perneger (1998) ArticleTitleWhat’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments Br Med J. 316 1236–1238 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c3itFSmtg%3D%3D
DL. Fairclough (2002) Design and Analysis of Quality of Life Studies in Clinical Trials Chapman & Hall New York
NS Jacobson P. Truax (1991) ArticleTitleClinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research J Consult Clin Psychol. 59 IssueID1 12–19 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By6C287nsFQ%3D Occurrence Handle2002127
RJ Fergason AB Robinson M. Spaine (2002) ArticleTitleUse of the reliable change index to evaluate clinical significance in SF-36 outcomes Qual Life Res 11 509–516 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1016350431190 Occurrence Handle12206571
KW Wyrwich NA Nienaber WM Tierney FD. Wolinsky (1999) ArticleTitleLinking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life Med Care. 37 IssueID5 469–478 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M3ms1Orsg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10335749
KW Wyrwich WM Tierney FD. Wolinsky (2002) ArticleTitleUsing the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the asthma quality of life questionnaire Qual Life Res. 11 1–7 Occurrence Handle12003051
MF. Drummond (2001) ArticleTitleIntroducing economic and quality of life measures into clinical studies Ann Med. 33 344–349 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvksFWqsA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11491193
SJ Walters MJ Campbell S. Paisley (2001) ArticleTitleMethods for determining sample sizes for studies involving quality of life measures: A tutorial Health Services Outcomes Res Methodol. 2 83–99
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walters, S.J., Brazier, J.E. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 14, 1523–1532 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0