Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: a comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma
Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: a comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-0609.2011.01665.x
复制
发表时间：
2011-10-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Wisloff, Finn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kvam, Ann Kristin;Fayers, Peter M.;Wisloff, Finn
目的：本研究的目的是(i)比较EORTC QLQ-C30癌症特异性问卷和用于医疗保健干预经济评估的通用问卷EQ-5D和15D的响应性，（ii）确定这些问卷中的最小重要差异（mid）。MID是被认为对患者重要的生活质量评分中变化最小的。方法：2006 - 2008年间，239例多发性骨髓瘤患者在入组时（T1）和术后3个月（T2）完成问卷调查。在T2时，询问患者是否注意到他们的生活质量有任何变化。在访谈中，应答性和MIDs是通过患者的平均评分变化（T2-T1）来确定的，这些患者在访谈中表示他们改善了，恶化了，或者没有变化。反应性也采用标准化反应手段进行评估。使用成对差异的Wilcoxon检验来评估变化的统计学显著性。结果：改善后患者T2积分均显著提高（P < 0.01）。病情恶化的患者在T2时的评分较低；然而，对于15D组，得分差异无统计学意义。改善患者的QLQ-C30、EQ-5D和15D的mid分别为8、0.08和0.03，恶化患者的mid为12、0.10和0.02。结论：所有三份调查问卷均显示改善患者的反应性可接受。然而，15D在病情恶化的患者中没有最佳反应，因此不能推荐用于骨髓瘤患者。
Objectives: The aims of this study were to (i) compare the responsiveness of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire and the generic questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D used for economic evaluation of healthcare interventions and (ii) determine the minimal important differences (MIDs) in these questionnaires. The MID is the smallest change in a quality-of-life score considered important to patients. Methods: Between 2006 and 2008, 239 patients with multiple myeloma completed the questionnaires at inclusion (T1) and after 3 months (T2). At T2, patients were asked whether they had noticed any change in their quality of life. Responsiveness and MIDs were determined by mean score changes (T2-T1) for patients who, in the interview, stated they had improved, deteriorated, or were unchanged. Responsiveness was also assessed using standardized response means. Wilcoxon tests for pair differences were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the changes. Results: Patients who improved had significantly (P < 0.01) higher scores at T2 in all three questionnaires. Patients who deteriorated reported lower scores at T2; however, for the 15D, the differences in score were not statistically significant. The MIDs for the QLQ-C30, EQ-5D, and 15D were 8, 0.08, and 0.03 in patients who improved and 12, 0.10 and 0.02 in patients who deteriorated, respectively. Conclusions: All three questionnaires showed an acceptable responsiveness in patients who improved. However, the 15D did not respond optimally in patients who deteriorate and cannot be recommended for use in patients with myeloma.