Cited by 15Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

How much is enough? Considering minimally important change in youth mental health outcomes

Krause, Karolin R, Hetrick, Sarah E, Courtney, Darren B, Cost, Katherine Tombeau, Butcher, Nancy J, Offringa, Martin, Monga, Suneeta, Henderson, Joanna +1 more·2022·The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract

To make decisions in mental health care, service users, clinicians, and administrators need to make sense of research findings. Unfortunately, study results are often presented as raw questionnaire scores at different time points and regression coefficients, which are difficult to interpret with regards to their clinical meaning. Other commonly reported treatment outcome indicators in clinical trials or meta-analyses do not convey whether a given change score would make a noticeable difference to service users. There is an urgent need to improve the interpretability and relevance of outcome indicators in youth mental health (aged 12-24 years), in which shared decision making and person-centred care are cornerstones of an ongoing global transformation of care. In this Personal View, we make a case for considering minimally important change (MIC) as a meaningful, accessible, and user-centred outcome indicator. We discuss what the MIC represents, how it is calculated, and how it can be implemented in dialogues between clinician and researcher, and between youth and clinician. We outline how use of the MIC could enhance reporting in clinical trials, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, and measurement-based care. Finally, we identify current methodological challenges around estimating the MIC and areas for future research. Efforts to select outcome domains and valid measurement instruments that resonate with youth, families, and clinicians have increased in the past 5 years. In this context, now is the time to define demarcations of changes in outcome scores that are clinically relevant, and meaningful to youth and families. Through the use of MIC, youth-centred outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting would support youth-centred therapeutic decision making.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2215-0366(22)00338-8

Cites

63 of 63 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
Krause, K. R., Hetrick, S. E., Courtney, D. B., Cost, K. T., Butcher, N. J., Offringa, M., Monga, S., Henderson, J., & Szatmari, P.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Hospital for Sick Children (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
9
Issue
12
Pages
992-998
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4309661217
Cited by
15
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
minimally important change, youth mental health, outcome indicators, shared decision-making, person-centred care, measurement-based care, clinical trial reporting, meta-analysis
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Shared, Adolescent, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Mental Health, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome

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