Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Minimally important difference of the Child Oral Health Impact Profile for children with orofacial anomalies

Authors: Ryan Richard Ruff, Lacey Sischo, Hillary L. Broder

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Child Oral Health Impact Profile (COHIP) is an instrument designed to measure the self-reported oral health-related quality of life of children between the ages of 8 and 15, including domains for oral health, functional well-being, social-emotional well-being, school environment and self-image. The purpose of this study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) of the COHIP for patients with cleft lip/palate.

Methods

Data from a 6-year, prospective, longitudinal cohort study of children with cleft lip/palate were analyzed to estimate the MID. Analysis was restricted to patients with data at baseline and first follow-up and not receiving a surgical intervention in the intervening years (N = 281). MIDs were estimated via the anchor-based method, using the Global Assessment of Change, and the effect size distribution method.

Results

Based on the distributional method, the minimally important differences were 0.16 (oral health), 0.12 (functional), 0.22 (social-emotional), 0.21 (school environment) and 0.19 (self-image). MID anchor estimates for COHIP domains ranged from −0.32 to 0.84. The anchor-based and effect size MID estimates for the overall COHIP score were 2.95 and 0.25, respectively.

Conclusion

The minimally important difference of the Child Oral Health Impact Profile is recommended for interpreting clinically meaningful change in patients with cleft lip/palate.
Literature
1.
Parker SE, Mai CT, Canfield MA, et al. Updated National Birth Prevalence Estimates for Selected Birth Defects in the United States, 2004–2006. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2010;88(12):1008–16.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Allen PJ, Vessey JA, Schapiro N. Primary care of the child with a chronic condition. Missouri: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2009.
3.
Mulvaney SA, Hood KK, Schlundt DG, et al. Development and initial validation of the barriers to diabetes adherence measure for adolescents. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;94(1):77–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Brezniak N, Benyair S. Patient burnout - behavior of young-adults undergoing orthodontic treatment. Stress Med. 1989;5(3):183–7.CrossRef
5.
Genderson MW, Sischo L, Markowitz K, Fine D, Broder HL. An overview of children’s oral health-related quality of life assessment: from scale development to measuring outcomes. Caries Res. 2013;47 Suppl 1:13–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Broder HL, Wilson-Genderson M. Reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the Child Oral Health Impact Profile (COHIP Child’s version). Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35 Suppl 1:20–31.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Masood M, Masood Y, Saub R, Newton JT. Need of minimal important difference for oral health-related quality of life measures. J Public Health Dent. 2014;74(1):13–20.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kohn CG, Sidovar MF, Kaur K, Zhu Y, Coleman CI. Estimating a minimal clinically important difference for the EuroQol 5-Dimension health status index in persons with multiple sclerosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(66):66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(1):81–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Shikiar R, Harding G, Leahy M, Lennox RD. Minimal important difference (MID) of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI): results from patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Malden PE, Thomson WM, Jokovic A, Locker D. Changes in parent-assessed oral health-related quality of life among young children following dental treatment under general anaesthetic. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2008;36(2):108–17.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Broder HL, Norman RG, Sischo L, Wilson-Genderson M. Evaluation of the similarities and differences in response patterns to the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory and the Child Oral Health Impact Scores among youth with cleft. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(1):339–47.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Landorf KB, Radford JA, Hudson S. Minimal Important Difference (MID) of two commonly used outcome measures for foot problems. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010;3:7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Tsakos G, Allen PF, Steele JG, Locker D. Interpreting oral health-related quality of life data. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012;40(3):193–200.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):139–44.PubMed
17.
Cella D, Bullinger M, Scott C, Barofsky I. Clinical significance consensus meeting G. group vs individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(4):384–92.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Broder HL, Ricciardi D, Rodriguez JY, Sischo L. Understanding and assessing quality of life. In: Losee JE, Kirschner RE, editors. Comprehensive Cleft Care. Vol Forthcoming. 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Education; 2015.
19.
Nelson PA. Qualitative approaches in craniofacial research. Cleft Palate-Cran J. 2009;46(3):245–51.CrossRef
20.
Wilson-Genderson M, Broder H, Phillips C. Concordance between caregiver and child reports of children’s oral health-related quality of life. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35(s1):32–40.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Minimally important difference of the Child Oral Health Impact Profile for children with orofacial anomalies
Authors
Ryan Richard Ruff
Lacey Sischo
Hillary L. Broder
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0544-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

A comparison of health utility scores calculated using United Kingdom and Canadian preference weights in persons with alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers

Research

Orthostatic intolerance symptoms are associated with depression and diminished quality of life in patients with postural tachycardia syndrome

Research

Most prevalent unmet supportive care needs and quality of life of breast cancer patients in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia

Research

Many correlates of poor quality of life among substance users entering treatment are not addiction-specific

Research

Child maltreatment and quality of life: a study of adolescents in residential care

Research

Psychometric evaluation of the Sinhalese version of MacNew Heart Disease Health Related Quality of Life Questionnaire in patients with stable angina