Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: The SF-6D and EQ-5D are both preference-based measures of health. Empirical work is required to determine what the smallest change is in utility scores that can be regarded as important and whether this change in utility value is constant across measures and conditions. Objectives: To use distribution and anchor-based methods to determine and compare the minimally important difference (MID) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D for various datasets. Methods: The SF-6D is scored on a 0.29–1.00 scale and the EQ-5D on a −0.59–1.00 scale, with a score of 1.00 on both, indicating ‘full health’. Patients were followed for a period of time, then asked, using question 2 of the SF-36 as our anchor, if their general health is much better (5), somewhat better (4), stayed the same (3), somewhat worse (2) or much worse (1) compared to the last time they were assessed. We considered patients whose global rating score was 4 or 2 as having experienced some change equivalent to the MID. This paper describes and compares the MID and standardised response mean (SRM) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D from eight longitudinal studies in 11 patient groups that used both instruments. Results: From the 11 reviewed studies, the MID for the SF-6D ranged from 0.011 to 0.097, mean 0.041. The corresponding SRMs ranged from 0.12 to 0.87, mean 0.39 and were mainly in the ‘small to moderate’ range using Cohen’s criteria, supporting the MID results. The mean MID for the EQ-5D was 0.074 (range −0.011–0.140) and the SRMs ranged from −0.05 to 0.43, mean 0.24. The mean MID for the EQ-5D was almost double that of the mean MID for the SF-6D. Conclusions: There is evidence that the MID for these two utility measures are not equal and differ in absolute values. The EQ-5D scale has approximately twice the range of the SF-6D scale. Therefore, the estimates of the MID for each scale appear to be proportionally equivalent in the context of the range of utility scores for each scale. Further empirical work is required to see whether or not this holds true for other utility measures, patient groups and populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. JA Sloan D Cella M Frost et al. (2002) ArticleTitleAssessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient quality of life: Introduction to the symposium, content overview, and definition of terms Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID4 367–370 Occurrence Handle11936934

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. GH Guyatt D Osoba AW Wu KW Wyrwich GR. Norman (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID4 371–383 Occurrence Handle11936935

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. D Cella M Bullinger C Scott I. Barofsky (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meting Group. Group vs. individual approaches to understanding the clinical significance of differences or changes in quality of life. Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID4 384–392 Occurrence Handle11936936

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. JA Sloan N Aaronson JC Cappelleri DL Fairclough C. Varricchio (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID5 479–487 Occurrence Handle12004998

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. MH Frost AE Bonomi CE Ferrans GY Wong RD. Hays (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores. Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID5 488–494 Occurrence Handle12004999

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. MA Sprangers CM Moinpour TJ Moynihan DL Patrick DA. Revicki (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group Assessing meaningful change in quality of life over time: A users’ guide for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID6 561–571 Occurrence Handle12059127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. T Symonds R Berzon P Marquis TA. Rummans (2002) ArticleTitleClinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. The clinical significance of quality-of-life results: Practical considerations for specific audiences. Mayo Clin Proc. 77 IssueID6 572–583 Occurrence Handle12059128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. PM Fayers DM. Machin (2000) Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis & Interpretation Wiley Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R Jaeschke J Singer GH. Guyatt (1989) ArticleTitleMeasurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Contr Clin Trials. 10 407–415 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By%2BC3cjks1c%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. J Sloan T Symonds D Vargas-Chanes B. Fridley (2003) ArticleTitlePractical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health-related quality of life changes within clinical trials Drug Inf J. 37 IssueID1 23–31

    Google Scholar 

  11. EF Juniper GH Guyatt A Willan LE. Griffith (1994) ArticleTitleDetermining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life questionnaire J Clin Epidemiol. 47 IssueID1 81–87 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByuC3M%2FotVY%3D Occurrence Handle8283197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. GR Norman FG Sridhar GH Guyatt SD. Walter (2001) ArticleTitleThe relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health related quality of life Med Care. 39 IssueID10 1039–1047 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00005650-200110000-00002 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MritVSksQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11567167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. J. Cohen (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. EditionNumber2 Lawrence Erlbaum Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  14. GR Norman P Stratford G. Regehr (1997) ArticleTitleMethodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach J Clin Epidemiol. 50 IssueID8 869–879 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiH3sjjtlw%3D Occurrence Handle9291871

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. JE Brazier JF Roberts MD. Deverill (2002) ArticleTitleThe estimation of a preference based measure of health from the SF-36 Health Econ. 21 271–292

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A social tariff for the EuroQol: Results from a UK general population survey. Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper No. 138. York: University of York, 1995

  17. JE Ware SuffixJr KK Snow M Kosinski B. Gandek (1993) SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  18. SJ Walters CJ Morrell S. Dixon (1999) ArticleTitleMeasuring health-related quality of life in patients with venous leg ulcers Qual Life Res. 8 IssueID4 327–336 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1MvgtFertw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10472165

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. KJ Thomas H MacPherson L Thorpe et al. (2003) Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture to patients with chronic low back pain. Report to NCCHTA SchARR, University of Sheffield Sheffield, UK

    Google Scholar 

  20. S. Allard (2000) NAME IT Study Group. Phase IIIB. IV Clinical Study Report of a Double-Blind, Randomised, Controlled Study to Compare Methotrexate plus Neoral® versus Methotrexate plus Placebo in Subjects with Early Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Novartis Pharma Basel, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  21. M Burton S Walters M Saleh J. Brazier (2003) An Evaluation of Health Status Measures in Lower Limb Trauma. Report for Trent Regional Health Authority University of Sheffield Sheffield, UK

    Google Scholar 

  22. RL Akehurst JE Brazier N Mathers et al. (2002) ArticleTitleHealth-related quality of life and cost impact of irritable bowel syndrome in a UK primary care setting Pharmacoeconomics. 20 IssueID7 455–462 Occurrence Handle12093301

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. EA Lacey SJ. Walters (2003) ArticleTitleContinuing inequality: Gender and social class influences on self-perceived health after a heart attack J Epidemiol Commun Health. 57 622–627 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3szltFWntg%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. JE Brazier R Harper JF Munro SJ Walters ML. Snaith (1999) ArticleTitleGeneric and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee Rheumathology. 38 870–877 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1MvktlKksA%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. R Harper JE Brazier JC Waterhouse SJ Walters NMB Jones P. Howard (1997) ArticleTitleComparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting Thorax. 52 879–887 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FmvVWrtA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9404375

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. LE Kazis JJ Anderson RF. Meenan (1989) ArticleTitleEffect sizes for interpreting changes in health status Med Care. 27 IssueID3 S178–S189 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiaC2Mfjt1U%3D Occurrence Handle2646488

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. MH Liang AH Fossel MG. Larson (1990) ArticleTitleComparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopaedic Evaluation Med Care. 28 IssueID7 632–642 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By%2BA3cbktlQ%3D Occurrence Handle2366602

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. GR Norman JA Sloan KW. Wyrwich (2003) ArticleTitleInterpretation of changes in health related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation Med Care. 41 IssueID5 582–592 Occurrence Handle12719681

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. M Ryan DA Scott C Reeves A Bate ER Teijlingen Particlevan EM Russell M Napper CM. Robb (2001) ArticleTitleEliciting public preferences for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques Health Technol Assess. 5 IssueID5 1–186 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7mtlaktw%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. J Brazier M Deverill C Green R Harper A. Booth (1999) ArticleTitleA review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation Health Technol Assess. 3 IssueID9 1–164

    Google Scholar 

  31. KW Wyrwich SM Metz AN Babu K Kroenke WM Tierney FD. Wolinsky (2002) ArticleTitleThe reliability of retrospective change assessments Qual Life Res. 11 IssueID7 636

    Google Scholar 

  32. SJ Walters JE. Brazier (2003) ArticleTitleWhat is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D Health Qual Life Outcomes. 1 IssueID4 1–8 Occurrence Handle12605709

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. TV. Perneger (1998) ArticleTitleWhat’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments Br Med J. 316 1236–1238 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c3itFSmtg%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. DL. Fairclough (2002) Design and Analysis of Quality of Life Studies in Clinical Trials Chapman & Hall New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. NS Jacobson P. Truax (1991) ArticleTitleClinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research J Consult Clin Psychol. 59 IssueID1 12–19 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By6C287nsFQ%3D Occurrence Handle2002127

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. RJ Fergason AB Robinson M. Spaine (2002) ArticleTitleUse of the reliable change index to evaluate clinical significance in SF-36 outcomes Qual Life Res 11 509–516 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1016350431190 Occurrence Handle12206571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. KW Wyrwich NA Nienaber WM Tierney FD. Wolinsky (1999) ArticleTitleLinking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life Med Care. 37 IssueID5 469–478 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M3ms1Orsg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10335749

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. KW Wyrwich WM Tierney FD. Wolinsky (2002) ArticleTitleUsing the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the asthma quality of life questionnaire Qual Life Res. 11 1–7 Occurrence Handle12003051

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. MF. Drummond (2001) ArticleTitleIntroducing economic and quality of life measures into clinical studies Ann Med. 33 344–349 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvksFWqsA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11491193

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. SJ Walters MJ Campbell S. Paisley (2001) ArticleTitleMethods for determining sample sizes for studies involving quality of life measures: A tutorial Health Services Outcomes Res Methodol. 2 83–99

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen J. Walters.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walters, S.J., Brazier, J.E. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 14, 1523–1532 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0

Keywords

Navigation