Clinically important differences in health status for patients with heart disease: An expert consensus panel report

Kathleen W. Wyrwich, John A. Spertus, Kurt Kroenke, William M. Tierney, Ajit N. Babu, Fredric D. Wolinsky

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

86 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background The purpose of the study was to develop clinically important difference (CID) standards for patients with coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure that identify small, moderate, and large intraindividual changes with time in a modified version of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36, version 2). Prior work in ascertaining important difference standards for the CHQ have centered on patient-perceived changes. No important difference standards for the SF-36 have been published for patients with heart disease. This development of CIDs would facilitate the use of health status measures in daily clinical decision-making. Methods We used a modification of the RAND Appropriateness Method to assemble and guide a 9-member consensus panel of physicians with substantial experience in using the CHQ or the SF-36 among patients with heart disease. Results On the basis of their own experience using these measures and an extensive review of articles describing the development and use of these instruments, the expert panel achieved consensus on small, medium, and large clinically relevant changes in scores for the CHQ and SF-36. The CID standards established by this panel were slightly higher than the minimal important difference standards previously established for the CHQ using patient-perceived changes. Conclusions The CID standards established by this expert panel provide an important and useful tool for determining whether routine clinical health status assessments will benefit patients and enhance physicians' decision-making capacity in clinical settings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)615-622
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Heart Journal
Volume147
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2004

Fingerprint

Health Status
Heart Diseases
Heart Failure
Consensus
Physicians
Health Surveys
Coronary Artery Disease
Decision Making
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Clinically important differences in health status for patients with heart disease : An expert consensus panel report. / Wyrwich, Kathleen W.; Spertus, John A.; Kroenke, Kurt; Tierney, William M.; Babu, Ajit N.; Wolinsky, Fredric D.

In: American Heart Journal, Vol. 147, No. 4, 04.2004, p. 615-622.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wyrwich, Kathleen W. ; Spertus, John A. ; Kroenke, Kurt ; Tierney, William M. ; Babu, Ajit N. ; Wolinsky, Fredric D. / Clinically important differences in health status for patients with heart disease : An expert consensus panel report. In: American Heart Journal. 2004 ; Vol. 147, No. 4. pp. 615-622.
@article{fe2dafe5828d4faeb423f6eb8a08decf,
title = "Clinically important differences in health status for patients with heart disease: An expert consensus panel report",
abstract = "Background The purpose of the study was to develop clinically important difference (CID) standards for patients with coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure that identify small, moderate, and large intraindividual changes with time in a modified version of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36, version 2). Prior work in ascertaining important difference standards for the CHQ have centered on patient-perceived changes. No important difference standards for the SF-36 have been published for patients with heart disease. This development of CIDs would facilitate the use of health status measures in daily clinical decision-making. Methods We used a modification of the RAND Appropriateness Method to assemble and guide a 9-member consensus panel of physicians with substantial experience in using the CHQ or the SF-36 among patients with heart disease. Results On the basis of their own experience using these measures and an extensive review of articles describing the development and use of these instruments, the expert panel achieved consensus on small, medium, and large clinically relevant changes in scores for the CHQ and SF-36. The CID standards established by this panel were slightly higher than the minimal important difference standards previously established for the CHQ using patient-perceived changes. Conclusions The CID standards established by this expert panel provide an important and useful tool for determining whether routine clinical health status assessments will benefit patients and enhance physicians' decision-making capacity in clinical settings.",
author = "Wyrwich, {Kathleen W.} and Spertus, {John A.} and Kurt Kroenke and Tierney, {William M.} and Babu, {Ajit N.} and Wolinsky, {Fredric D.}",
year = "2004",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.ahj.2003.10.039",
language = "English",
volume = "147",
pages = "615--622",
journal = "American Heart Journal",
issn = "0002-8703",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinically important differences in health status for patients with heart disease

T2 - An expert consensus panel report

AU - Wyrwich, Kathleen W.

AU - Spertus, John A.

AU - Kroenke, Kurt

AU - Tierney, William M.

AU - Babu, Ajit N.

AU - Wolinsky, Fredric D.

PY - 2004/4

Y1 - 2004/4

N2 - Background The purpose of the study was to develop clinically important difference (CID) standards for patients with coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure that identify small, moderate, and large intraindividual changes with time in a modified version of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36, version 2). Prior work in ascertaining important difference standards for the CHQ have centered on patient-perceived changes. No important difference standards for the SF-36 have been published for patients with heart disease. This development of CIDs would facilitate the use of health status measures in daily clinical decision-making. Methods We used a modification of the RAND Appropriateness Method to assemble and guide a 9-member consensus panel of physicians with substantial experience in using the CHQ or the SF-36 among patients with heart disease. Results On the basis of their own experience using these measures and an extensive review of articles describing the development and use of these instruments, the expert panel achieved consensus on small, medium, and large clinically relevant changes in scores for the CHQ and SF-36. The CID standards established by this panel were slightly higher than the minimal important difference standards previously established for the CHQ using patient-perceived changes. Conclusions The CID standards established by this expert panel provide an important and useful tool for determining whether routine clinical health status assessments will benefit patients and enhance physicians' decision-making capacity in clinical settings.

AB - Background The purpose of the study was to develop clinically important difference (CID) standards for patients with coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure that identify small, moderate, and large intraindividual changes with time in a modified version of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHQ) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36, version 2). Prior work in ascertaining important difference standards for the CHQ have centered on patient-perceived changes. No important difference standards for the SF-36 have been published for patients with heart disease. This development of CIDs would facilitate the use of health status measures in daily clinical decision-making. Methods We used a modification of the RAND Appropriateness Method to assemble and guide a 9-member consensus panel of physicians with substantial experience in using the CHQ or the SF-36 among patients with heart disease. Results On the basis of their own experience using these measures and an extensive review of articles describing the development and use of these instruments, the expert panel achieved consensus on small, medium, and large clinically relevant changes in scores for the CHQ and SF-36. The CID standards established by this panel were slightly higher than the minimal important difference standards previously established for the CHQ using patient-perceived changes. Conclusions The CID standards established by this expert panel provide an important and useful tool for determining whether routine clinical health status assessments will benefit patients and enhance physicians' decision-making capacity in clinical settings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=3142652493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=3142652493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ahj.2003.10.039

DO - 10.1016/j.ahj.2003.10.039

M3 - Article

C2 - 15077075

AN - SCOPUS:3142652493

VL - 147

SP - 615

EP - 622

JO - American Heart Journal

JF - American Heart Journal

SN - 0002-8703

IS - 4

ER -