Advertisement

The Application of Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Palliative Research: Interpretation of Results of a Systematic Review

      Abstract

      Context

      Interpreting clinical meaningfulness of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in palliative care research is key in evidence-based practice. Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) can help interpret whether changes in PROs are meaningful to patients.

      Objective

      To examine use of MCIDs in a recent systematic review on integrating palliative care into ambulatory care for U.S. adults with noncancer serious chronic illness and their effect on interpretation of key PROs.

      Methods

      Paired investigators abstracted MCIDs for each PRO in the systematic review from PubMed, tool specific websites, and Google Scholar. Investigators compared findings and resolved differences through consensus. MCIDs were interpreted alongside results from meta-analyses or individual studies to draw conclusions on effectiveness of interventions.

      Results

      MCIDs could be identified for 10 of 23 instruments affecting seven of nine outcomes. The most notable effect was for depressive symptoms, where three trials reported statistically significant differences that were not clinically meaningful based on available MCIDs. Although differences in statistical significance and MCIDs were noted for other outcomes, they were accounted for in meta-analyses or affected a minimal number of studies within the outcome category.

      Conclusions

      Incorporating MCIDs affected the interpretation of almost all PROs in the systematic review. MCIDs are important measures of clinical meaningfulness for the interpretation of palliative care research involving PROs. Researchers should consider using instruments with well-established MCIDs and incorporate MCIDs, when available, in study design and interpretation.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Antunes B
        • Harding R
        • Higginson IJ.
        Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators and barriers.
        Palliat Med. 2014; 28: 158-175https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216313491619
        • Mercieca-Bebber R
        • King MT
        • Calvert MJ
        • Stockler MR
        • Friedlander M.
        The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization.
        Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2018; 9: 353-367https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S156279
        • McGlothlin AE
        • Lewis RJ.
        Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients.
        JAMA. 2014; 312: 1342-1343
        • Jaeschke R
        • Singer J
        • Guyatt GH.
        Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.
        Control Clin Trials. 1989; 10: 407-415
        • Dy SM
        • Waldfogel JM
        • Sloan DH
        • et al.
        Integrating Palliative Care in Ambulatory Care of Noncancer Serious Chronic Illness [Internet].
        Rockville, 2021 (Accessed February 25, 2022)
        • Chyr LC
        • DeGroot L
        • Waldfogel JM
        • et al.
        Implementation and effectiveness of integrating palliative care into ambulatory care of noncancer serious chronic illness: mixed methods review and meta-analysis.
        Ann Fam Med. 2022; 20: 77-83https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2754
        • Aslakson RA
        • Dy SM
        • Wilson RF
        • et al.
        Patient- and caregiver-reported assessment tools for palliative care: summary of the 2017 agency for healthcare research and quality technical brief.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017; 54: 961-972.e16https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.04.022
      1. Rabow MW, Petersen J, Schanche K, Dibble SL, Mcphee SJ.The Comprehensive Care Team: A Description of a Controlled Trial of Care at the Beginning of the End of Life. Vol 6.; 2003. www.liebertpub.com.

        • Rabow MW
        • Dibble SL
        • Pantilat SZ
        • Mcphee SJ.
        The comprehensive care team a controlled trial of outpatient palliative medicine consultation.
        Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164: 83-91
        • O'Donnell AE
        • Schaefer KG
        • Stevenson LW
        • et al.
        Social worker-aided palliative care intervention in high-risk patients with heart failure (SWAP-HF). A pilot randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA Cardiol. 2018; 3: 516-519https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0589
        • Bekelman DB
        • Allen LA
        • McBryde CF
        • et al.
        Effect of a collaborative care intervention vs usual care on health status of patients with chronic heart failure the CASA randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2018; 178: 511-519https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8667
        • Bekelman DB
        • Plomondon ME
        • Carey EP
        • et al.
        Primary results of the Patient-Centered Disease Management (PCDM) for heart failure study a randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175: 725-732https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0315
        • Rogers JG
        • Patel CB
        • Mentz RJ
        • et al.
        Palliative care in heart failure: the PAL-HF randomized, controlled clinical trial.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70: 331-341
        • O'Riordan DL
        • Rathfon MA
        • Joseph DM
        • et al.
        Feasibility of implementing a palliative care intervention for people with heart failure: learnings from a pilot randomized clinical trial.
        J Palliat Med. 2019; 22: 1583-1588https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2018.0633
        • Kluger BM
        • Miyasaki J
        • Katz M
        • et al.
        Comparison of integrated outpatient palliative care with standard care in patients with parkinson disease and related disorders: a randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA Neurol. 2020; 77: 551-560https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4992
        • Feely MA
        • Swetz KM
        • Zavaleta K
        • Thorsteinsdottir B
        • Albright RC
        • Williams AW.
        Reengineering dialysis: the role of palliative medicine.
        J Palliat Med. 2016; 19: 652-655https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2015.0181
        • Owens D
        • Eby K
        • Burson S
        • Green M
        • McGoodwin W
        • Isaac M.
        Primary Palliative Care Clinic Pilot Project demonstrates benefits of a nurse practitioner-directed clinic providing primary and palliative care.
        J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2012; 24: 52-58https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2011.00664.x
        • Lowe B
        • Unutzer J
        • Callahan CM
        • Perkins AJ
        • Kroenke K.
        Monitoring depression treatment outcomes with the patient health questionnaire-9.
        Med Care. 2004; 42: 1194-1201
        • Lemay KR
        • Tulloch HE
        • Pipe AL
        • Reed JL.
        Establishing the minimal clinically important difference for the hospital anxiety and depression scale in patients with cardiovascular disease.
        J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2019; 39: E6-E11https://doi.org/10.1097/HCR.0000000000000379
        • Puhan MA
        • Frey M
        • Büchi S
        • Schünemann HJ.
        The minimal important difference of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008; 6https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-6-46
        • Smid DE
        • Franssen FME
        • Houben-Wilke S
        • et al.
        Responsiveness and MCID estimates for CAT, CCQ, and HADS in patients with COPD undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation: a prospective analysis.
        J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017; 18: 53-58https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2016.08.002
        • Bedard G
        • Zeng L
        • Zhang L
        • et al.
        Minimal clinically important differences in the edmonton symptom assessment system in patients with advanced cancer.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013; 46: 192-200https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.07.022
        • Hui D
        • Shamieh O
        • Paiva CE
        • et al.
        Minimal clinically important differences in the edmonton symptom assessment scale in cancer patients: a prospective, multicenter study.
        Cancer. 2015; 121: 3027-3035https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29437
        • Mouelhi Y
        • Jouve E
        • Castelli C
        • Gentile S.
        How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020; 18: 1-17https://doi.org/10.1186/S12955-020-01344-W/FIGURES/2
        • Draak THP
        • De Greef BTA
        • Faber CG
        • Merkies ISJ.
        The minimum clinically important difference: which direction to take.
        Eur J Neurol. 2019; 26: 850-855https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13941
        • Kalinowski P
        • Fidler F.
        Interpreting significance: the differences between statistical significance, effect size, and practical importance.
        Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. 2010; 10: 50-54
        • Turner D
        • Schunemann HJ
        • Griffith LE
        • et al.
        The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 28-36
        • Revicki D
        • Hays RD
        • Cella D
        • Sloan J.
        Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 102-109https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2007.03.012
        • Beaton DE.
        Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation.
        Med Care. 2003; 41: 593-596https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000064706.35861.B4
        • Butler J
        • Khan MS
        • Mori C
        • et al.
        Minimal clinically important difference in quality of life scores for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.
        Eur J Heart Fail. 2020; 22: 999-1005https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1810
        • Spertus J
        • Peterson E
        • Conard MW
        • et al.
        Monitoring clinical changes in patients with heart failure: a comparison of methods.
        Am Heart J. 2005; 150: 707-715https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2004.12.010
        • Holden SK
        • Koljack CE
        • Prizer LP
        • Sillau SH
        • Miyasaki JM
        • Kluger BM.
        Measuring quality of life in palliative care for Parkinson's disease: a clinimetric comparison.
        Park Relat Disord. 2019; 65: 172-177https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2019.06.018
        • Gonzalez-Saenz De Tejada M
        • Bilbao A
        • Ansola L
        • et al.
        Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019; 17https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1104-2
        • Kroenke K
        • Fitsum Baye
        • Lourens SG
        Comparative responsiveness and minimally important difference of common anxiety measures.
        Med Care. 2019; 57: 890-897
        • Toussaint A
        • Hüsing P
        • Gumz A
        • et al.
        Sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference of the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD-7).
        J Affect Disord. 2020; 265: 395-401https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.032
        • Frahm Olsen M
        • Bjerre E
        • Hansen MD
        • Tendal B
        • Hilden J
        • Hróbjartsson A
        Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 101: 87-106https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2018.05.007
        • Oxberry SG
        • Bland JM
        • Clark AL
        • Cleland JGF
        • Johnson MJ.
        Minimally clinically important difference in chronic breathlessness: every little helps.
        Am Heart J. 2012; 164: 229-235https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2012.05.003
        • Horita N
        • Miyazawa N
        • Morita S
        • et al.
        Small, moderate, and large changes, and the minimum clinically important difference in the University of California, San Diego shortness of breath questionnaire.
        COPD J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2014; 11: 26-32https://doi.org/10.3109/15412555.2013.808615
        • Kupferberg DH
        • Kaplan RM
        • Slymen DJ
        • Ries AL.
        Minimal clinically important difference for the UCSD Shortness of Breath Questionnaire.
        J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2005; 25: 370-377https://doi.org/10.1097/00008483-200511000-00011