TY - JOUR
T1 - The clinical significance of quality-of-life results
T2 - Practical considerations for specific audiences
AU - Symonds, Tara
AU - Berzon, Rick
AU - Marquis, Patrick
AU - Rummans, Teresa A.
AU - Aaronson, Neil
AU - Barofsky, Ivan
AU - Bonomi, Amy
AU - Bullinger, Monika
AU - Cappelleri, Joseph C.
AU - Cella, David
AU - Fairclough, Diane L.
AU - Ferrans, Carol Estwing
AU - Frost, Marlene H.
AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.
AU - Hays, Ron D.
AU - Moinpour, Carol M.
AU - Moynihan, Tim
AU - Norman, Geoff
AU - Osoba, David
AU - Patrick, Donald
AU - Revicki, Dennis
AU - Scott, Charles
AU - Sloan, Jeff A.
AU - Sprangers, Mirjam
AU - Varricchio, Claudette
AU - Wong, Gilbert
AU - Wu, Albert
AU - Wyrwich, Kathleen
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - This is the sixth article in a series intended to summarize the state of the science for assessing the clinical significance of quality-of-life (QOL) assessments. The previous 5 articles dealt with specific methodological issues, whereas this article addresses practical considerations in implementing the methods and presenting the results to various audiences with differing perspectives. Proposals for how to interpret the "clinical significance" or "clinical meaningfulness" of changes in QOL scores were addressed in previous articles within this series. Within this article, 4 audiences - patients and physicians, clinical researchers, health policymakers, and private- and public-sector employees who work in health-related fields - are examined because each is a unique stakeholder with a distinct vantage point and each can interpret QOL outcomes differently. A clinician may attempt to explain to a patient potential treatment alternatives for his or her QOL; a health policymaker may try to describe to elected officials the financial impact on a patient population with reduced QOL; a researcher may try to obtain the vital messages from a clinical trial that included QOL end points; and a regulatory agency and/or pharmaceutical company may try to ascertain the appropriate level of evidence required for a successful research study. For each of the 4 audiences, concrete examples and practical guidelines are offered by which changes in QOL outcomes can be interpreted meaningfully. Ultimately, both determining and disseminating the meaning of clinical significance are functions of the outlook of the audience because the perspective of the audience determines its ability to comprehend, evaluate, and convey the context within which such outcomes appear meaningful. Among the audiences described within this article, a commonality of interests exist that mandates a careful exposition of the scientific rigor involved in describing the clinical significance of QOL assessments. Collectively, this series attempts to provide methods and means for making such determinations.
AB - This is the sixth article in a series intended to summarize the state of the science for assessing the clinical significance of quality-of-life (QOL) assessments. The previous 5 articles dealt with specific methodological issues, whereas this article addresses practical considerations in implementing the methods and presenting the results to various audiences with differing perspectives. Proposals for how to interpret the "clinical significance" or "clinical meaningfulness" of changes in QOL scores were addressed in previous articles within this series. Within this article, 4 audiences - patients and physicians, clinical researchers, health policymakers, and private- and public-sector employees who work in health-related fields - are examined because each is a unique stakeholder with a distinct vantage point and each can interpret QOL outcomes differently. A clinician may attempt to explain to a patient potential treatment alternatives for his or her QOL; a health policymaker may try to describe to elected officials the financial impact on a patient population with reduced QOL; a researcher may try to obtain the vital messages from a clinical trial that included QOL end points; and a regulatory agency and/or pharmaceutical company may try to ascertain the appropriate level of evidence required for a successful research study. For each of the 4 audiences, concrete examples and practical guidelines are offered by which changes in QOL outcomes can be interpreted meaningfully. Ultimately, both determining and disseminating the meaning of clinical significance are functions of the outlook of the audience because the perspective of the audience determines its ability to comprehend, evaluate, and convey the context within which such outcomes appear meaningful. Among the audiences described within this article, a commonality of interests exist that mandates a careful exposition of the scientific rigor involved in describing the clinical significance of QOL assessments. Collectively, this series attempts to provide methods and means for making such determinations.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036260588&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036260588&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4065/77.6.572
DO - 10.4065/77.6.572
M3 - Article
C2 - 12059128
AN - SCOPUS:0036260588
SN - 0025-6196
VL - 77
SP - 572
EP - 583
JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings
JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings
IS - 6
M1 - 62001
ER -