4.6 Article

Minimum clinically important differences in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire: from a study of heart failure patients treated with integrated Chinese and Western medicine

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1242216

关键词

Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire; minimum clinically important difference; heart failure; quality of life; integrated Chinese and Western medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to estimate the minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ) for heart failure patients treated with integrated Chinese and Western medicine in order to assist doctors and patients in assessing intervention effectiveness. MCIDs were estimated using anchor-based and distribution-based approaches, and different MCIDs were obtained for different dimensions.
ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to estimate the minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ), which targeted patients with heart failure treated with integrated Chinese and Western medicine, as a means of helping doctors and patients judge the effectiveness of intervention.MethodsA total of 194 patients with chronic heart failure were recruited from three general hospitals in Beijing. Anchor-based and distribution-based approaches were used to estimate MCID. The anchor was SF-36 item 2 (HT, Health Transition), and the calculation methods included the mean change method, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and linear regression model. For the distribution-based approaches, 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 standardized response mean (SRM) values and standard error of measurement (SEM) value of 1 were used.ResultsThe correlation coefficients of the MLHFQ scale information and HT were 0.346-0.583. Different MCIDs were obtained by the mean change method, ROC curve, and linear regression model. The minimum MCID in the physical domain, emotional domain, and total scores were 3.6, 2.0, and 7.4, respectively; the maximum estimates were 9.5, 2.5, and 13.0, respectively; and the average estimates were 5.7, 2.2, and 10.0, respectively. The average estimates were close to the result of the 0.5 SRM or 1 SEM.ConclusionWe established MCIDs in the MLHFQ using anchor-based and distribution-based approaches. It was recommended to round the average estimates of anchor-based approaches up to the nearest whole number for the MCIDs of the MLHFQ physical domain, emotional domain, and total scores. The results were 6.0, 2.0, and 10.0, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据