Evaluating the Significance of
Download
1 / 30

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


  • 102 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' October 8, 2004 UCLA GIM/HSR Research Seminar Series' - conley


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

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.



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)



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)


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


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



Amount of change in observed score needed for significant change
Amount of Change in Observed Score Needed for Significant Change






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.


ad