Minimally important difference of the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q)

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Javier Soto²  Antonio Pardo¹  Miguel A Ruiz¹  Javier Rejas² 

[1] Department of Methodology, School of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain;Health Outcomes Research Department, Corporate Affairs and Market Access Unit, Pfizer España, Alcobendas (Madrid), Spain

关键词: medicines;    chronic health conditions;    satisfaction;    SATMED-Q;    minimally important difference;    meaningful difference;   

Others  :  1139901
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-11-142

 received in 2010-11-16, accepted in 2011-10-20,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

A previous study has documented the reliability and validity of the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q) in exploring patient satisfaction with medicines for chronic health conditions in routine medical practice, but the minimally important difference (MID) of this tool is as yet unknown. The objective of this research was to estimate the MID for the SATMED-Q total score and six constituent domains.

Methods

The sample of patients (456 subjects, mean age 59 years, 53% male) used for testing psychometric properties was also used to assess MID. Item #14 of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) was used as an anchor reference since it directly explores satisfaction with medicine on a 7-point ordinal scale (from extremely satisfied to extremely dissatisfied, with a neutral category). Patients were classified into four categories according to responses to this item (extremely satisfied/dissatisfied, very satisfied/dissatisfied, satisfied/dissatisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral), and calculations were made for the total score and each domain of the SATMED-Q using standardised scores. The mean absolute differences in total score (and domains) between the neutral category and the satisfied/dissatisfied category were considered to be the MID. Effect sizes (ES) were also computed.

Results

The MID for the total score was 13.4 (ES = 0.91), while the domain values ranged from 10.3 (medical care domain, ES = 0.43) to 20.6 (impact on daily living, ES = 0.85). Mean differences in satisfaction (as measured by the total SATMED-Q score and domain scores) using the levels of satisfaction established by item #14 were significantly different, with F values ranging from 12.2 to 88.8 (p < 0.001 in all cases).

Conclusion

The SATMED-Q was demonstrated to be responsive to different levels of patient satisfaction with therapy in chronically ill subjects. The MID obtained was 13.4 points for the overall normalised scoring scale, and between 10.3 and 20.6 points for domains.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Rejas et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Murdaugh CL, Vanderboom C: Individual and community models for promoting wellness. J Cardiovasc Nurs 1997, 11:1-14.
• [2]Wright JG: Evaluating the outcome of treatment. Shouldn't we be asking patients if they are better? J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:549-553.
• [3]Ruiz MAy, Rejas J: Calidad de vida y otras medidas de salud informadas por el paciente. In Farmacoeconomía e Investigación de Resultados en la Salud: Principios y Práctica. Situación actual y perspectivas futuras en España. Edited by A Domínguez-Gil y J Soto. Madrid: Fundación José Casares Gil; 2000:115-159.
• [4]Cleary PD, McNeil BJ: Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality care. Inquiry 1988, 25:25-36.
• [5]Shikiar R, Rentz AM: Satisfaction with medication: an overview of conceptual, methodologic, and regulatory issues. Val Health 2004, 7:204-215.
• [6]Aharony L, Strasser S: Patient satisfaction: What we know about and what we still need to explore. Med Care Rev 1993, 50:49-79.
• [7]Albrecht G, Hoogstraten J: Satisfaction as a determinant of compliance. Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol 1998, 26:139-146.
• [8]Avis M, Bond M, Arthur A: Satisfying solutions? A review of some unresolved issues in the measurement of patient satisfaction. J Adv Nurs 1995, 22:316-322.
• [9]Bredart A, Razavi D, Delvaux N, Goodman V, Farvacques C, Van Heer C: A comprehensive assessment of satisfaction with care for cancer patients. Sup Care Cancer 1998, 6:518-523.
• [10]Hudak PL, Wright JG: The characteristics of patient satisfaction measures. Spine 2000, 25:3167-3177.
• [11]Williams B: Patient satisfaction: a valid concept? Soc Sci Med 1994, 38:509-516.
• [12]Lenderking WR: Brief reflections on treatment satisfaction. Value Health 2005, 8(Suppl. 1):S2-S5.
• [13]Ruiz MA, Pardo A, Rejas J, Soto J, Villasante F, Aranguren JL: Development and validation of the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q). Value Health 2008, 11:913-926.
• [14]Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH: Psychometric Theory. 3rd edition. New York. McGraw-Hill; 1994.
• [15]Fayers PM, Machin D, Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons; 2000.
• [16]Casas J, Repullo JR, Pereira J: Medidas de calidad de vida relacionada con la salud. Conceptos básicos, construcción y adaptación cultural [Health related quality of life measures. Basic concepts, construction and cultural adaptation]. Med Clin (Barc) 2001, 116:798-796.
• [17]Hays RD, Woolley JM: The concept of clinically meaningful difference in Health-related Quality of Life Research. Pharmacoeconomics 2000, 18:419-423.
• [18]Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH: Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clin Trials 1989, 10:407-415.
• [19]Rummel RJ: Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press; 1970.
• [20]Atkinson MJ, Sinha A, Hass SL, Colman SS, Kumar RN, Brod M, Rowland CR: Validation of a general measure of treatment satisfaction - the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) - using a national panel study of chronic disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004, 2:12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J: Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:102-109.
• [22]Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE: Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994, 47:81-87.
• [23]Rejas J, Gil A, San Isidro C, Palacios G, Carrasco P: Sensibilidad al cambio y Diferencia Mínimamente Importante de la versión española del Cuestionario de Satisfacción con la Vida LISAT 8 en pacientes varones con Disfunción Eréctil. Med Clin (Barc) 2005, 124:165-71.
• [24]Guyat GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR, the clinical significance consensus meeting group: Methods to explain the clinical significance of Health Status Measures. Mayo Clinic Proc 2002, 77:371-383.
• [25]Kozma CM, Slaton TL, Monz BU, Hodder R, Reese PR: Development and validation of a patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire for inhalation devices. Treat Respir Med 2005, 4:41-52.
• [26]Vernon MK, Revicki DA, Awad AG, Dirani R, Panish J, Canuso CM, Grinspan A, Mannix S, Kalali AH: Psychometric evaluation of the Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) to assess satisfaction with antipsychotic medication among schizophrenia patients. Schizophr Res 2010, 118:271-278.
• [27]Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF: Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med care 1989, 27:S178-S189.
• [28]Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989.
• [29]Nunnally JC, Bernstein IJ: Teoría Psicométrica (3ª ed.). México: McGraw-Hill 1995.
• [30]Revicki DA: Patient assessment of the treatment satisfaction: methods and practical issues. Gut 2004, 53(supp iv):40-44.
• [31]George J, Kong DC, Thomas R, Stewart K: Factors associated with medication nonadherence in patients with COPD. Chest 2005, 128:3198-3204.
• [32]Shikiar R, Rentz AM, Barone J: Patient satisfaction with ofloxacin (F) and polymyxin B/Neomycin/Hydrocortisone in the treatment of otitis externa: results from two randomized clinical trials. J Man Care Med 2002, 6:24-27.
• [33]Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD: Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 1999, 37:469-478.
• [34]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, 52:861-873.
• [35]Rejas J, Pardo A, Ruiz M: Standard error of measurement as a valid alternative to minimally important difference for evaluating the magnitude of changes in patient-reported outcomes measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:350-356.
• [36]Sloan JA, Cella D, Frost M, Guyatt GH, Sprangers M, Symonds T, the clinical significance consensus meeting group: Assessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient Quality of Life: Introduction to the Symposium, content overview, and definition of terms. Mayo Clinic Proc 2002, 77:367-370.
• [37]Higginson IJ, Carr AJ: Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ 2001, 322:1297-1300.
• [38]Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE: Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994, 47:81-87.