Patient-reported questionnaires in MS rehabilitation: responsiveness and minimal important difference of the multiple sclerosis questionnaire for physiotherapists (MSQPT)

Nico Arie van der Maas, Nico Arie van der Maas

Abstract

Background: The Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire for Physical Therapists (MSQPT) is a patient-rated outcome questionnaire for evaluating the rehabilitation of persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Responsiveness was evaluated, and minimal important difference (MID) estimates were calculated to provide thresholds for clinical change for four items, three sections and the total score of the MSQPT.

Methods: This multicentre study used a combined distribution- and anchor-based approach with multiple anchors and multiple rating of change questions. Responsiveness was evaluated using effect size, standardized response mean (SRM), modified SRM and relative efficiency. For distribution-based MID estimates, 0.2 and 0.33 standard deviations (SD), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change were used. Triangulation of anchor- and distribution-based MID estimates provided a range of MID values for each of the four items, the three sections and the total score of the MSQPT. The MID values were tested for their sensitivity and specificity for amelioration and deterioration for each of the four items, the three sections and the total score of the MSQPT. The MID values of each item and section and of the total score with the best sensitivity and specificity were selected as thresholds for clinical change. The outcome measures were the MSQPT, Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire for Multiple Sclerosis (HAQUAMS), rating of change questionnaires, Expanded Disability Status Scale, 6-metre timed walking test, Berg Balance Scale and 6-minute walking test.

Results: The effect size ranged from 0.46 to 1.49. The SRM data showed comparable results. The modified SRM ranged from 0.00 to 0.60. Anchor-based MID estimates were very low and were comparable with SD- and SEM-based estimates. The MSQPT was more responsive than the HAQUAMS in detecting improvement but less responsive in finding deterioration. The best MID estimates of the items, sections and total score, expressed in percentage of their maximum score, were between 5.4% (activity) and 22% (item 10) change for improvement and between 5.7% (total score) and 22% (item 10) change for deterioration.

Conclusions: The MSQPT is a responsive questionnaire with an adequate MID that may be used as threshold for change during rehabilitation of MS patients.

Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively (01/24/2015) registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02346279.

Keywords: Multiple sclerosis; Patient outcome assessment; Physical therapy; Questionnaires; Rehabilitation; Responsiveness.

References

    1. Van der Maas NA, Biland-Thommen U, Grillo JT. Die Valididität, Reliabilität und Akzeptanz des Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire for Physiotherapists (MSQPT) Physioscience. 2010;5:135–142. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1245617.
    1. Van der Maas NA, Steinlin Egli R, et al. Evaluation des subjektiven Gesundheitszustandes von MS-Patienten in physiotherapeutischer Behandlung: Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire for Physiotherapists®(MSQPT®) In: Schädler S, et al., editors. Assessments in der rehabilitation, band 1: neurologie. 3. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber; 2012. pp. 532–539.
    1. Bortz J, Döring N. Forschungsmethoden und evaluation für human- und sozialwissenschaftler. 3. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer; 2003. pp. 180–181.
    1. Wirtz M, Caspar F. Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität. Göttingen Bern Toronto Seattle: Hogrefe-Verlag; 2002. pp. 123–127.
    1. Revicki D, Hays RD, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
    1. Turner D, Schünemann HJ, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(1):28–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.024.
    1. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, et al. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(14):i–iv.
    1. Baert I, Freeman J, et al. Responsiveness and clinically meaningful improvement, according to disability level, of five walking measures after rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: a European multicenter study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28(7):621–631. doi: 10.1177/1545968314521010.
    1. De Groot V, Beckerman H, et al. The usefulness of evaluative outcome measures in patients with multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2006;129(Pt10):2648–2659. doi: 10.1093/brain/awl223.
    1. Fayers PM, Hays RD. Don’t middle your MIDs: regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(1):1–4. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0443-4.
    1. Gold SM, Schulz H, et al. Responsiveness of patient-based and external rating scales in multiple sclerosis: head-to-head comparison in three clinical settings. J Neurol Sci. 2010;290(1–2):102–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2009.10.020.
    1. Norman, et al. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of Life; the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–592.
    1. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(9):861–873. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00071-2.
    1. Wyrwich KW, Norquist JM, et al. Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:475–483. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0175-x.
    1. Middel B, van Sonderen E. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e15. doi: 10.5334/ijic.65.
    1. Tang A, Eng JJ, Rand D. Relationship between perceived and measured changes in walking after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2012;36(3):115–121. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e318262dbd0.
    1. Middel B, de Greef M, et al. Why do not we ask patients with coronary disease directly how much they have changed after treatment? J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 2002;22(1):47–52. doi: 10.1097/00008483-200201000-00007.
    1. Gold SM, Heesen C, et al. Disease specific quality of life instruments in multiple sclerosis: validation of the Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire in Multiple Sclerosis (HAQUAMS) Mult Scler. 2001;7(2):119–130. doi: 10.1177/135245850100700208.
    1. Wright JG. The minimal important difference: Who’s to say what is important? J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(11):1221–1222. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00207-7.
    1. Gijbels D, Dalgas U, et al. Which walking capacity tests to use in multiple sclerosis? A multicentre study providing the basis for a core set. Mult Scler. 2012;18(3):364–371. doi: 10.1177/1352458511420598.
    1. Feys P, Gijbels D, et al. Effect of time of day on walking capacity and self-reported fatigue in persons with multiple sclerosis: a multi-center trial. Mult Scler. 2012;18(3):351–357. doi: 10.1177/1352458511419881.
    1. Learmonth YC, Dlugonski DD, et al. The reliability, precision and clinically meaningful change of walking assessments in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2013;19(13):1784–1791. doi: 10.1177/1352458513483890.
    1. Schwid SR, Goodman AD, et al. Quantitative functional measures in MS: what is a reliable change? Neurology. 2002;58(8):1294–1296. doi: 10.1212/WNL.58.8.1294.
    1. Kragt JJ, van der Linden FA, et al. Clinical impact of 20% worsening on timed 25-foot walk and 9-hole peg test in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2006;12(5):594–598. doi: 10.1177/1352458506070768.
    1. Tyson SF, Connel LA. How to measure balance in clinical practice. A systematic review of the psychometrics and clinical utility of measures of balance activity for neurological conditions. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23(9):824–840. doi: 10.1177/0269215509335018.
    1. Latzel G, Fischbacher Schrobiltgen E. Die Lebensbedingungen von MS-Betroffenen und die finanziellen Folgen ihrer Krankheit. Zürich: Schweizerische MS-Gesellschaft Zürich; 2001. Multiple Sklerose in der Schweiz.
    1. Schmitt JS, Di Fabio RP. Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(10):1008–1018. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.02.007.
    1. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health- related quality-of-life research. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;18(5):419–423. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200018050-00001.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi