Cited by 231Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeEconomic and Environmental ValuationMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Estimating the minimum important change in the 15D scores

Alanne, Soili, Roine, Risto P., Räsänen, Pirjo, Vainiola, Tarja, Sintonen, Harri·2015·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Purpose To facilitate the interpretation of empirical results produced by the 15D, a generic, preference-based instrument for measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a subjective five-category global assessment scale (GAS) was used as an external anchor to determine the minimum important change (MIC) in the 15D scores.Methods Altogether 4,903 hospital patients representing sixteen disease entities and having the 15D score at baseline repeated the HRQoL assessment at 6 months after treatment and answered the question: compared to the situation before treatment, my overall health status is now (1) much better, (2) slightly better, (3) much the same, (4) slightly worse, (5) much worse. Regression analysis was used to estimate the MIC for improvement/deterioration, defined as the lower/upper limit of 99.9 % confidence interval of the regression coefficient, standardized for baseline HRQoL, for categories (2) and (4), respectively, and confirmed by ROC curve analysis.Results The limits or intervals for classifying the changes of 15D scores into GAS categories were >.035 for (1), .015-.035 for (2),>-.015 and<.015 for (3), -.035--.015 for (4) and <-.035 for (5). The lower/upper limits of ±.015 for categories (2) and (4) can be regarded as the generic MIC thresholds for improvement/deterioration, respectively.Conclusions The generic MICs for the change of 15D scores are ±.015. Follow-up studies using the 15D should report the mean change in the 15D score, its statistical significance, relationship to the MIC, and the distribution of the changes of the 15D scores into the five categories.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-014-0787-4

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alanne, S., Roine, R. P., Räsänen, P., Vainiola, T., & Sintonen, H.
Affiliations
  • Seinäjoen Keskussairaala (FI)
  • University of Eastern Finland (FI)
  • Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa (FI)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
Sintonen, Harri
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2014-08-22
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
599-606
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2023078845
Cited by
231
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 1
FWCI
45.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
15D, health-related quality of life, Global Assessment Scale, self-rated health, hospitalized patients
MeSH terms
Female, Finland, Follow-Up Studies, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, ROC Curve, Models, Statistical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review