Top

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research article

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

Authors: Antoine Vanier, Véronique Sébille, Myriam Blanchin, Jean-Benoit Hardouin

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) are standardized questionnaires used to measure subjective outcomes such as quality of life in healthcare. They are considered paramount to assess the results of therapeutic interventions. However, because their calibration is relative to internal standards in people’s mind, changes in PRO scores are difficult to interpret.

Knowing the smallest value in the score that the patient perceives as change can help. An estimator linking the answers to a Patient Global Rating of Change (PGRC: a question measuring the overall feeling of change) with change in PRO scores is frequently used to obtain this value. In the last 30 years, a plethora of methods have been used to obtain these estimates, but there is no consensus on the appropriate method and no formal definition of this value.

Methods

We propose a model to explain changes in PRO scores and PGRC answers.

Results

A PGRC measures a construct called the Perceived Change (PC), whose determinants are elicited. Answering a PGRC requires discretizing a continuous PC into a category using threshold values that are random variables. Therefore, the populational value of the Minimal Perceived Change (MPC) is the location parameter value of the threshold on the PC continuum defining the switch from the absence of change to change.

Conclusions

We show how this model can help to hypothesize what are the appropriate methods to estimate the MPC and its potential to be a rigorous theoretical basis for future work on the interpretation of change in PRO scores.

Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14(2):109–14.CrossRef

Beaujean A. Latent variable modeling using R. A step-by-step guide: Taylor and Francis; 2014.CrossRef

Brozeck, J. L. 2006 How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure Health Qual Life Outcomes 7

Cohen, J. (2009). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. ed., reprint). Psychology Press

Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. Quality of life : The assessment, analysis, and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed). J. Wiley. 2007

Glymour, M., & Greenland, S. (2008). Causal diagrams. In Modern Epidemiology. Third Edition. (Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, p. 183‑209).

Grace JB, Schoolmaster DR, Guntenspergen GR, Little AM, Mitchell BR, Miller KM, Schweiger EW. Guidelines for a graph-theoretic implementation of structural equation modeling. Ecosphere. 2012;3(8):art73. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00048.1.CrossRef

Guyon H, Kop J-L, Juhel J, Falissard B. Measurement, ontology, and epistemology : Psychology needs pragmatism-realism. Theory Psychol. 2018;28(2):149–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318761606.

Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15.CrossRef

10.

Leidy NK, Wyrwich KW. Bridging the gap : using triangulation methodology to estimate minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). COPD. 2005;2(1):157–65. https://doi.org/10.1081/COPD-200050508.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Li Y, Schwartz CE. Data mining for response shift patterns in multiple sclerosis patients using recursive partitioning tree analysis. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1543–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0004-7.CrossRefPubMed

12.

McGlothlin AE, Lewis RJ. Minimal Clinically Important Difference : Defining What Really Matters to Patients. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1342–3.

13.

Metz SM, Wyrwich KW, Babu AN, Kroenke K, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Validity of patient-reported health-related quality of life global ratings of change using structural equation modeling. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(7):1193–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9225-1.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Mozes B, Maor Y, Shmueli A. Do We Know What Global Ratings of Health-Related Quality of Life Measure? Qual Life Res. 1999;8(3):269–73.CrossRef

16.

Norman G. Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(3):239–49.CrossRef

17.

Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. The truly remarkable universality of half a standard deviation : Confirmation through another look. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2004;4(5):581–5. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.4.5.581.

18.

Novick M. The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. J Math Psychol. 1966;3:1–18.CrossRef

19.

Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, Scott JA, Rock EP, Dawisha S, O’Neill R, Kennedy DL. Patient-Reported Outcomes to Support Medical Product Labeling Claims : FDA Perspective. Value in Health. 2007;10:S125–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00275.x.

20.

Rapkin BD, Garcia I, Michael W, Zhang J, Schwartz CE. Distinguishing appraisal and personality influences on quality of life in chronic illness: Introducing the quality-of-life Appraisal Profile version 2. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(10):2815–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1600-y.

21.

Rapkin BD, Garcia I, Michael W, Zhang J, Schwartz CE. Development of a practical outcome measure to account for individual differences in quality-of-life appraisal : The Brief Appraisal Inventory. Qual Life Res. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1722-2.

22.

Rapkin BD, Schwartz CE. Toward a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal : Implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-14.

23.

Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, Snyder CF, Schwartz C, Revicki DA, Moinpour CM, McLeod LD, Lyons JC, Lenderking WR, Hinds PS, Hays RD, Greenhalgh J, Gershon R, Feeny D, Fayers PM, Cella D, Butt Z. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol. 1985;14(1):32–8.CrossRef

26.

Schwartz CE, Rapkin BD. Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2(1):16.CrossRef

27.

Schwartz CE, Finkelstein JA, Rapkin BD. Appraisal assessment in patient-reported outcome research : Methods for uncovering the personal context and meaning of quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(3):545–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1476-2.

28.

Schwartz CE, Powell VE, Rapkin BD. When global rating of change contradicts observed change : Examining appraisal processes underlying paradoxical responses over time. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(4):847–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1414-3.

29.

Terluin B, Eekhout I, Terwee CB, de Vet HCW. Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1388–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.015.CrossRefPubMed

30.

the Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL), Wyrwich KW, Norquist JM, Lenderking WR, Acaster S. Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2012;22(3):475–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0175-x.CrossRef

31.

Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski KA. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press; 2000.

32.

US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures : Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. 2009

33.

US Food and Drug Administration. Patient-Focused Drug Development Guidance Public Workshop. Methods to Identify What is Important to Patients & Select, Develop or Modify Fit-for-Purpose Clinical Outcomes. 2018

34.

Vanier, A., & Hardouin, J.-B. A theoretical argument against the use of cross-sectional anchors for estimating a Responder Definition according to the patient’s perspective. San Diego, 20–23 Oct, 26th international conference of International SOciety of Quality Of Life. 2019

35.

Vanier A, Leplège A, Hardouin J-B, Sébille V, Falissard B. Semantic primes theory may be helpful in designing questionnaires such as to prevent response shift. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):646–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.023.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Vanier, A., Woaye-Hune, P., Toscano, A., Sébille, V., & Hardouin, J.-B. What are all the proposed methods to estimate the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure ? A systematic review. Philadelphia, 18–21 Oct, 24th annual conference of International SOciety of Quality Of Life. 2017

37.

de Vet HCW, (Éd.). Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Press: Cambridge Univ; 2011.

38.

Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995;273(1):59–65.CrossRef

39.

Woaye-Hune P. Practical issues encountered while determining Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):156.CrossRef

40.

Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(9):861–73.CrossRef

41.

Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, Hays RD, Patrick DL, Symonds T. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(2):285–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2002;11(1):1–7.CrossRef

43.

Ziegelstein RC. Personomics. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(6):888–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0861.CrossRefPubMed

Title: 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
Authors: Antoine Vanier
Véronique Sébille
Myriam Blanchin
Jean-Benoit Hardouin
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01307-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

A population‐based study to develop juvenile arthritis case definitions for administrative health data using model‐based dynamic classification

Alternative adjustment for seasonality and long-term time-trend in time-series analysis for long-term environmental exposures and disease counts

A multiyear systematic survey of the quality of reporting for randomised trials in dentistry, neurology and geriatrics published in journals of Spain and Latin America

Inferencing superspreading potential using zero-truncated negative binomial model: exemplification with COVID-19

Quantifying parent engagement in the randomized Fuel for Fun impact study identified design considerations and BMI relationships

There is still room for improvement in the completeness of abstract reporting according to the PRISMA-A checklist: a cross-sectional study on systematic reviews in periodontology