Minimally important change on the Columbia Impairment Scale and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in youths seeking mental healthcare.

IF 4.9 0 PSYCHIATRY BMJ mental health Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1136/bmjment-2024-301425
Karolin R Krause, Alina Lee, Di Shan, Katherine Tombeau Cost, Lisa D Hawke, Amy H Cheung, Kristin Cleverley, Claire de Oliveira, Meaghen Quinlan-Davidson, Myla E Moretti, Jo L Henderson, Clement Ma, Peter Szatmari
{"title":"Minimally important change on the Columbia Impairment Scale and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in youths seeking mental healthcare.","authors":"Karolin R Krause, Alina Lee, Di Shan, Katherine Tombeau Cost, Lisa D Hawke, Amy H Cheung, Kristin Cleverley, Claire de Oliveira, Meaghen Quinlan-Davidson, Myla E Moretti, Jo L Henderson, Clement Ma, Peter Szatmari","doi":"10.1136/bmjment-2024-301425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence-based mental health requires patient-relevant outcome data, but many indicators lack clinical meaning and fail to consider youth perceptions. The minimally important change (MIC) indicator designates change as meaningful to patients, yet is rarely reported in youth mental health trials.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to establish MIC thresholds for two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the Columbia Impairment Scale (CIS) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), using different estimation methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sample of 247 youths (14-17 years) completed the CIS and SDQ at baseline and at 6 months in a youth mental health and substance use trial. At 6 months, youths also reported perceived change. Three anchor-based (mean change, receiver operating characteristic analysis, predictive modelling) and three distribution-based methods (0.5 SD, measurement error, smallest detectable change) were compared.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Different methods yielded varying MIC thresholds. Predictive modelling provided the most precise anchor-based MIC: -2.6 points (95% CI -3.6, -1.6) for the CIS and -1.7 points (95% CI -2.2, -1.2) for the SDQ, indicating that score improvements of 12% for the CIS and 8% for the SDQ may be perceived as 'important' by youths. However, correlations between change score and anchor were below 0.5 for both measures, indicating suboptimal anchor credibility. Stronger correlations between the anchor and T2 PROM scores compared with T1 scores suggest the presence of recall bias. All MIC estimates were smaller than the smallest detectable change.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Predictive modelling offers the most precise MIC, but limited anchor credibility suggests careful anchor calibration is necessary.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>Clinicians may consider the MIC CI as indicative of meaningful change when discussing treatment impact with patients.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT02836080.</p>","PeriodicalId":72434,"journal":{"name":"BMJ mental health","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11758695/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2024-301425","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based mental health requires patient-relevant outcome data, but many indicators lack clinical meaning and fail to consider youth perceptions. The minimally important change (MIC) indicator designates change as meaningful to patients, yet is rarely reported in youth mental health trials.

Objective: This study aimed to establish MIC thresholds for two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the Columbia Impairment Scale (CIS) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), using different estimation methods.

Methods: A sample of 247 youths (14-17 years) completed the CIS and SDQ at baseline and at 6 months in a youth mental health and substance use trial. At 6 months, youths also reported perceived change. Three anchor-based (mean change, receiver operating characteristic analysis, predictive modelling) and three distribution-based methods (0.5 SD, measurement error, smallest detectable change) were compared.

Findings: Different methods yielded varying MIC thresholds. Predictive modelling provided the most precise anchor-based MIC: -2.6 points (95% CI -3.6, -1.6) for the CIS and -1.7 points (95% CI -2.2, -1.2) for the SDQ, indicating that score improvements of 12% for the CIS and 8% for the SDQ may be perceived as 'important' by youths. However, correlations between change score and anchor were below 0.5 for both measures, indicating suboptimal anchor credibility. Stronger correlations between the anchor and T2 PROM scores compared with T1 scores suggest the presence of recall bias. All MIC estimates were smaller than the smallest detectable change.

Conclusions: Predictive modelling offers the most precise MIC, but limited anchor credibility suggests careful anchor calibration is necessary.

Clinical implications: Clinicians may consider the MIC CI as indicative of meaningful change when discussing treatment impact with patients.

Trial registration number: NCT02836080.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在寻求心理保健的青少年中,哥伦比亚障碍量表和优势与困难问卷的变化最小。
背景:基于证据的心理健康需要患者相关的结果数据,但许多指标缺乏临床意义,未能考虑青少年的看法。最小重要变化(MIC)指标表明变化对患者有意义,但很少在青少年心理健康试验中报道。目的:本研究旨在采用不同的估计方法,建立两种患者报告的结果测量(PROMs),即哥伦比亚障碍量表(CIS)和优势与困难问卷(SDQ)的MIC阈值。方法:在青少年心理健康和物质使用试验中,247名青少年(14-17岁)在基线和6个月时完成了CIS和SDQ。在6个月时,年轻人也报告了感知到的变化。三种基于锚点的方法(平均变化、接收者工作特征分析、预测建模)和三种基于分布的方法(0.5 SD、测量误差、最小可检测变化)进行比较。结果:不同的方法产生不同的MIC阈值。预测模型提供了最精确的基于锚定的MIC: CIS为-2.6分(95% CI -3.6, -1.6), SDQ为-1.7分(95% CI -2.2, -1.2),表明CIS 12%的分数提高和SDQ 8%的分数提高可能被年轻人认为是“重要的”。然而,变化得分和锚之间的相关性都低于0.5,这表明锚的可信度不是最优的。锚点和T2 PROM分数与T1分数之间的相关性较强,表明存在回忆偏差。所有的MIC估计值都小于可检测到的最小变化。结论:预测模型提供了最精确的MIC,但有限的锚点可信度表明需要仔细的锚点校准。临床意义:临床医生在与患者讨论治疗效果时,可能会考虑MIC CI作为有意义变化的指示。试验注册号:NCT02836080。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Identifying postpartum depression subtypes using natural language processing and clinical notes. Discontinuation and reinitiation of pharmacological treatment for ADHD among individuals with ADHD and substance use disorder. International Depression Questionnaire and International Anxiety Questionnaire: validation of brief ICD-11 measures for depression and generalised anxiety disorder. Reduced risk of cause-specific hospitalisations and all-cause hospitalisation/mortality during treatment with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medications in the course of bipolar disorder: a Swedish registry-based within-subject cohort study. Levels of evidence supporting American, European and international guidelines in psychiatry, 2014-2024: a systematic review with quantitative synthesis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1