Affordable Access

What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D

Authors
Publisher
BioMed Central
Publication Date
Source
PMC
Keywords
  • Research

Abstract

1477-7525-1-4.fm ral Health and Quality of Life Outcomes ss BioMed Cent Open AcceResearch What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D Stephen J Walters* and John E Brazier Address: Sheffield Health Economics Group, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK Email: Stephen J Walters* - [email protected]; John E Brazier - [email protected] * Corresponding author Abstract Background: The SF-6D is a new single summary preference-based measure of health derived from the SF-36. Empirical work is required to determine what is the smallest change in SF-6D scores that can be regarded as important and meaningful for health professionals, patients and other stakeholders. Objectives: To use anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference (MID) for the SF-6D for various datasets. Methods: All responders to the original SF-36 questionnaire can be assigned an SF-6D score provided the 11 items used in the SF-6D have been completed. The SF-6D can be regarded as a continuous outcome scored on a 0.29 to 1.00 scale, with 1.00 indicating "full health". Anchor-based methods examine the relationship between an health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure and an independent measure (or anchor) to elucidate the meaning of a particular degree of change. One anchor-based approach uses an estimate of the MID, the difference in the QoL scale corresponding to a self-reported small but important change on a global scale. Patients were followed for a period of time, then asked, using question 2 of the SF-36 as our global rating scale, (which is not part of the SF-6D), if there 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

There are no comments yet on this publication. Be the first to share your thoughts.