Evaluating the Significance of
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 30

October 8, 2004 UCLA GIM/HSR Research Seminar Series PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 81 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Evaluating the Significance of Health-Related Quality of Life Change in Individual Patients R on Hays [email protected] October 8, 2004 UCLA GIM/HSR Research Seminar Series. Motivation. Interest in knowing how many patients benefit from group intervention

Download Presentation

October 8, 2004 UCLA GIM/HSR Research Seminar Series

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


October 8 2004 ucla gim hsr research seminar series

Evaluating the Significance of Health-Related Quality of Life Change in Individual PatientsRon [email protected]

October 8, 2004

UCLA GIM/HSR Research Seminar Series


Motivation

Motivation

  • Interest in knowing how many patients benefit from group intervention

  • Tracking progress on individual patients


Ucla center for east west medicine

UCLA Center for East-West Medicine

  • Staff training in biomedicine and traditional Chinese medicine.

  • Treat chronic pain conditions (e.g., neck and back pain, headaches, fibromyalgia, sports and occupational-related injuries), and cancer-related symptoms.

  • Provide comprehensive care, emphasizing health promotion, disease prevention, treatment and rehabilitation.

  • Patient education, medication adjustments, trigger point injections, acupuncture, acupressure, therapeutic massage, dietary and herbal counseling, and mind-body exercises.


Based on submitted paper

Based on Submitted Paper

  • Ron D. Hays, Marc Brodsky, M. Francis Johnston, Karen L. Spritzer, Ka-Kit Hui

  • Evaluating Health-Related Quality of Life Change in Individual Patients

  • Submitted to Evaluation and the Health Professions


Methods

Methods

  • 54 patients

  • Average age = 56; 84% white; 58% female

  • Self-administered SF-36 version 2 at baseline and about at end of therapy (about 6 weeks later).


Sf 36 version 2

SF-36 Version 2

  • Physical functioning (10 items)

  • Role limitations/physical (4 items)

  • Pain (2 items)

  • General health perceptions (5 items)

  • Social functioning (2 items)

  • Energy/fatigue (4 items)

  • Role limitations/emotional (3 items)

  • Emotional well-being (5 items)


Scoring the sf 36

Scoring the SF-36

  • Average or sum all items in the same scale.

  • Transform average or sum to

    • 0 (worse) to 100 (best) possible range

    • z-score (mean = 0, SD = 1)

    • T-score (mean = 50, SD = 10)

      • T-score = 50 + (z-score * 10)


Internal consistency reliability formula

Internal Consistency Reliability Formula

MSBMS = mean square between, MSEMS = mean square for interaction between respondents and items.


Sf 36 reliability estimates

SF-36 Reliability Estimates


Physical health

Physical Health

Physical Health

Physical function

Role function-physical

Pain

General Health


Mental health

Mental Health

Mental Health

Emotional Well-Being

Role function-emotional

Energy

Social function


Sf 36 version 2 pcs and mcs

SF-36 Version 2 PCS and MCS

  • PCS_z = (PF_z * .42402) + (RP_z * .35119) + (BP_z * .31754) + (GH_z * .24954) + (EF_z * .02877) + (SF_z * -.00753) + (RE_z * -.19206) + (EW_z * -.22069)

  • MCS_z = (PF_z * -.22999) + (RP_z * -.12329) + (BP_z * -.09731) + (GH_z * -.01571) + (EF_z * .23534) + (SF_z * .26876) + (RE_z * .43407) + (EW_z * .48581)


October 8 2004 ucla gim hsr research seminar series

Formula for Reliability of Composite


Reliability of sf 36 summary scores

Reliability of SF-36 Summary Scores

  • SF-36 PCS = 0.94

  • SF-36 MCS = 0.93


Analysis plan

Analysis Plan

  • * Comparison on SF-36 physical functioning and emotional well-being scale scores with other samples

  • * Significance of:

  • - Within group change

  • - Within individual change


T test for within group change

t-test for within group change

  • XD/(SDd/n ½)

XD = is mean difference, SDd = standard deviation of difference


Formulas for significance of individual change

Formulas for Significance of Individual Change

SDb = standard deviation at baseline


Estimated true score for score of 60

Estimated True Score for Score of 60

  • Mean + reliability (score – mean)

  • 50 + 0.90 (60 – 50) = 59


Reliable change index

Reliable Change Index

  • X2 – X1/ SEM * SQRT (2)


October 8 2004 ucla gim hsr research seminar series

Formulas for Significance of Individual Change

SDb = standard deviation at baseline


Minimum delta for individual significance

Minimum Delta for Individual Significance

  • SEM: > 1.96 SEM

  • RCI: > 1.96 * SQRT (2) * SEM

  • SEp-90: > 1.64 SEp; SEp-95: > 1.96 SEp


October 8 2004 ucla gim hsr research seminar series

Physical Functioning and Emotional Well-Being at Baseline

for 54 Patients at UCLA-Center for East West Medicine

Hays et al. (2000), American Journal of Medicine


Change in sf 36 scores over time

Change in SF-36 Scores Over Time

Effect Size

0.13

0.35

0.35

0.21

0.53

0.36

0.11

0.41

0.24

0.30


Significance of group change

Significance of Group Change


Amount of change in observed score needed for significant change

Amount of Change in Observed Score Needed for Significant Change


Proportion of 54 cases declining significantly

Proportion of 54 Cases Declining Significantly


October 8 2004 ucla gim hsr research seminar series

Proportion of 54 Cases Improving Significantly


October 8 2004 ucla gim hsr research seminar series

% Improved – % Declined


Questions

Questions


Bibliography

Bibliography

  • Bauer, S., Lambert, M. J., & Nielsen, S. L. (2004). Clinical significance methods: A comparison of statistical techniques. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 60-70.

  • Dudek, F. J. (1979). The continuing misinterpretation of the standard error of measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 335-337.

  • Ferguson, R. J., Robinson, A. B., & Splaine, M. (2002). Use of the reliable change index to evaluate clinical significance in SF-36 outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 11, 509-516.

  • Hsu, L. M. (1989). Reliable changes in psychotherapy: Taking into account regression toward the mean. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 459-467.

  • Jacobson, N. S., Follette, W. C., & Revenstorf, D. (1984). Toward a standard definition of clinically significant change. Behavior Therapy, 17, 308-311.

  • Speer, D. C., & Greenbaum, P. E. (1995). Five methods for computing significant individual client change and improvement rates: Support for an individual growth curve approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 1044-1048.


  • Login