Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The minimal clinical important difference in the World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument—100

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to estimate the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) of the World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment instrument (WHOQOL-100) for women with early-stage breast cancer. If the MCID is known, then the instrument is also useful for individual patients and thus useful in clinical practice. In this study, the MCID is the smallest change in quality of life (QOL) scores considered clinically relevant for patients.

Methods

Data were derived from a prospective study in which 223 women with early-stage breast cancer and 383 women with benign breast problems completed the WHOQOL-100. MCID values were determined by two distribution-based methods (0.5 standard deviation (SD) and 1 standard error of measurement (SEM)) and an anchor-based method.

Results

For 0.5 SD, MCID estimates ranged from 0.64 to 0.94, and for 1 SEM, MCID estimates ranged from 0.69 to 1.18. The anchor-based approach resulted in MCID estimates ranging from −1.56 to −0.71 for decline and from 0.51 to 1.27 for improvement.

Conclusion

A change in score of 1 on the WHOQOL-100 is proposed as the MCID for women with early-stage breast cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WHOQOL group (1995) The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment [WHOQOL]: position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med 41:1403–1409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. WHOQOL Group (1998) The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment [WHOQOL]: development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 46:1569–1585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tazaki M, Nakane Y, Endo T, Kakikawa F, Kano K, Kawano H et al (1998) Results of a qualitative and field study using the WHOQOL instrument for cancer patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol 28:134–141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Den Oudsten BL, Van Heck GL, Van der Steeg AF, Roukema JA, De Vries J (2009) The WHOQOL-100 has good psychometric properties in breast cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol 62(2):195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. O'Carroll RE, Smith K, Couston M, Cossar JA, Hayes PC (2000) A comparison of the WHOQOL-100 and the WHOQOL-BREF in detecting change in quality of life following liver transplantation. Qual Life Res 9:121–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. O'Carroll RE, Couston M, Cossar J, Masterton G, Hayes PC (2003) Psychological outcome and quality of life following liver transplantation: a prospective, national, single-center study. Liver Transpl 9:712–720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Skevington SM, Carse MS, Williams AC (2001) Validation of the WHOQOL-100: pain management improves quality of life for chronic pain patients. Clin J Pain 17:264–275

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Masthoff ED, Trompenaars FJ, Van Heck GL, Hodiamont PP, De Vries J (2005) Validation of the WHO Quality of Life assessment instrument [WHOQOL-100] in a population of Dutch adult psychiatric outpatients. Eur Psychiatry 20:465–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J (2008) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61(2):102–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sloan JA, Cella D, Frost M, Guyatt GH, Sprangers M, Symonds T (2002) Assessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient quality of life: introduction to the symposium, content overview, and definition of terms. Mayo Clin Proc 77(4):367–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK (2006) Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. De Vries J, Van Heck GL (1997) The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment instrument [WHOQOL-100]: validation study with the Dutch version. Eur J Psychol Assess 13:164–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guyatt G, Schunemann H (2007) How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Qual Life Res 16(7):1097–1105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41(5):582–592

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2004) The truly remarkable universality of half a standard deviation: confirmation through another look. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 4(5):581–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR (2003) Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56(5):395–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bonomi AE, Patrick DL, Bushnell DM, Martin M (2000) Validation of the United States' version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life [WHOQOL] instrument. J Clin Epidemiol 53(1):1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. O'Carroll RE, Cossar JA, Couston MC, Hayes PC (2000) Sensitivity to change following liver transplantation: a comparison of three instruments that measure quality of life. J Health Psychol 5:69–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van der Steeg AF, De Vries J, Roukema JA (2010) Anxious personality and breast cancer: possible negative impact on quality of life after breast-conserving therapy. World J Surg 34(7):1453–1460

    Google Scholar 

  20. Van der Steeg AF, De Vries J, Van der Ent FW, Roukema JA (2007) Personality predicts quality of life six months after the diagnosis and treatment of breast disease. Ann Surg Oncol 14:678–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Power M, Harper A, Bullinger M (1999) The World Health Organization WHOQOL-100: tests of the universality of Quality of Life in 15 different cultural groups worldwide. Health Psychol 18:495–505

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. WHOQOL Group (1998) Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol Med 28:551–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE (1970) STAI manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  24. Van der Ploeg HM, Defares PB, Spielberger CD (1980) ZBV: a Dutch-language adaptation of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse

    Google Scholar 

  25. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7(5):541–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jacobson NS, Truax P (1991) Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 59(1):12–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD (1999) Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52(9):861–873

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Yost KJ, Cella D, Chawla A, Holmgren E, Eton DT, Ayanian JZ et al (2005) Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal [FACT-C] instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches. J Clin Epidemiol 58(12):1241–1251

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE (1994) Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 47(1):81–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10(4):407–415

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cella D, Eton DT, Lai JS, Peterman AH, Merkel DE (2002) Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy [FACT] anemia and fatigue scales. J Pain Symptom Manag 24(6):547–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  33. King MT (2011) A point of minimal important difference [MID]: a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11(2):171–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None declared. The authors declare that they have full control of all primary data. We agree to allow the journal to review the data if requested.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CoRPS—Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Department of Medical Psychology, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, the Netherlands

    Brenda L. Den Oudsten, Wobbe P. Zijlstra & Jolanda De Vries

  2. Department of Education and Research, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands

    Brenda L. Den Oudsten

  3. Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands

    Wobbe P. Zijlstra

  4. Department of Medical Psychology, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands

    Jolanda De Vries

Authors
  1. Brenda L. Den Oudsten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wobbe P. Zijlstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jolanda De Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brenda L. Den Oudsten.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Den Oudsten, B.L., Zijlstra, W.P. & De Vries, J. The minimal clinical important difference in the World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument—100. Support Care Cancer 21, 1295–1301 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1664-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1664-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation