基于分布法的癌症患者生命质量测定量表体系之白血病量表的最小临床重要性差值制定

国际肿瘤学杂志››2021,Vol. 48››Issue (10): 577-582.doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn371439-20210420-00114

• 党为人民谋健康的100年 •下一篇

基于分布法的癌症患者生命质量测定量表体系之白血病量表的最小临床重要性差值制定

李伟强¹, 吴洋², 万崇华¹(), 谭健烽¹, 何争春³, 孟琼⁴

¹广东医科大学人文与管理学院生命质量与应用心理研究中心,东莞 523808
²昆明市健康教育所 650034
³昆明医科大学附属第一医院血液科 650504
⁴昆明医科大学公共卫生学院 650500

收稿日期:2021-04-20修回日期:2021-05-05出版日期:2021-10-08发布日期:2021-11-24
通讯作者:万崇华 E-mail:wanchh@hotmail.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(71974040);国家自然科学基金(81273185)

Establishing minimal clinically important differences of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients-Leukemia based on the distribution-based approach

Li Weiqiang¹, Wu Yang², Wan Chonghua¹(), Tan Jianfeng¹, He Zhengchun³, Meng Qiong⁴

¹School of Humanities and Management, Research Center for Quality of Life and Applied Psychology, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan 523808, China
²Kunming Municipal Health Education Institute, Kunming 650034, China
³Department of Hematology, First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming 650504, China
⁴School of Public Health, Kunming Medical University, Kunming 650500, China

Received:2021-04-20Revised:2021-05-05Online:2021-10-08Published:2021-11-24
Contact:Wan Chonghua E-mail:wanchh@hotmail.com
Supported by:
National Natural Science Foundation of China(71974040);National Natural Science Foundation of China(81273185)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的制定癌症患者生命质量测定量表体系之白血病量表(QLICP-LE)(V2.0)的最小临床重要性差值(MCID)。方法对昆明医科大学第一附属医院和云南省第一人民医院于2011年10月至2012年5月收治的101例白血病患者进行生命质量调查,采用QLICP-LE(V2.0)进行数据收集,使用分布法中的效应尺度、标准测量误差(SEM)、可靠变化指数、标准化反应均数以及反应度统计量等5种指标来计算量表的总分及各个领域得分的MCID,并通过专家共识法,确定MCID推荐值。结果上述 5种指标制定的MCID分别为总量表1.4~9.3、躯体功能领域1.6~15.6、心理功能领域2.9~15.6、社会功能领域2.2~18.0、共性症状与不良反应领域1.7~17.1、共性模块1.8~10.0、特异性模块1.1~12.1。通过专家共识法,推荐使用由1.96SEM计算出的MCID结果,即总量表为4、躯体功能为8、心理功能为8、社会功能为9、共性症状与不良反应为9、共性模块为4、特异性模块为6。结论分布法中各种指标均有其优缺点,可结合实际情况选用。当临床上为白血病患者治疗后QLICP-LE(V2.0)的得分分值改变超过所计算出的MCID时,可以认为具有临床意义。

关键词:白血病,生活质量,最小临床重要性差值

Abstract:

ObjectiveTo develop the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients-Leukemia (QLICP-LE) (V2.0).MethodsThe quality of life of 101 patients with leukemia in First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University and First People's Hospital of Yunnan Province from October 2011 to May 2012 were measured. The QLICP-LE (V2.0) was used for data collection, and the MCID for the overall score and scores of various domains of QLICP-LE (V2.0) were established by using the distribution-based approach including indexes of effect size, standard error of measurement (SEM), reliable change index, standardized response mean and responsiveness statistic, and the recommended values of MCID were determined through the consensus method.ResultsThe MCID formulated by the above five indexes were as follows: the total scale 1.4-9.3, physical functional domain 1.6-15.6, psychological functional domain 2.9-15.6, social functional domain 2.2-18.0, common symptoms and side-effects domain 1.7-17.1, common module 1.8-10.0, and the specific module 1.1-12.1. Through the expert consensus method, it was recommended to use the MCID results calculated by 1.96SEM: the total scale was 4, physical domain was 8, psychological domain was 8, social domain was 9, common symptoms and side-effects domain was 9, common module was 4, and the specific module was 6.ConclusionEach index of distribution-based approach has its own advantages and disadvantages, which can be selected based on actual conditions. There is clinical significance when the score change of QLICP-LE (V2.0) of leukemia patients after treatment exceeds its MCID.

Key words:Leukemia,Quality of Life,Minimal clinically important difference

李伟强, 吴洋, 万崇华, 谭健烽, 何争春, 孟琼. 基于分布法的癌症患者生命质量测定量表体系之白血病量表的最小临床重要性差值制定[J]. 国际肿瘤学杂志, 2021, 48(10): 577-582.

Li Weiqiang, Wu Yang, Wan Chonghua, Tan Jianfeng, He Zhengchun, Meng Qiong. Establishing minimal clinically important differences of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients-Leukemia based on the distribution-based approach[J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2021, 48(10): 577-582.

图/表7

表1

101例白血病患者一般人口学特征"

项目	例数	构成比 (%)	项目	例数	构成比 (%)
性别			婚姻
男	56	55.4	未婚	20	19.8
女	45	44.6	已婚	76	75.2
年龄(岁)			离婚	4	4.0
20~40	53	52.4	丧偶	1	1.0
41~60	33	32.7	文化程度
>60	15	14.9	小学	16	15.8
民族			初中	41	40.6
汉族	81	80.2	高中或中专	20	19.8
少数民族	20	19.8	大专	9	8.9
			本科及以上	15	14.9

表1

领域	治疗前	治疗后	t值	P值
总量表	70.2±11.6	73.7±11.6	-2.812	0.006
躯体功能领域	55.3±16.1	59.3±15.3	-2.101	0.038
心理功能领域	66.6±16.6	68.1±17.2	-0.786	0.434
社会功能领域	63.4±13.0	63.5±12.0	0.388	0.699
共性症状与不良反应领域	77.6±17.2	82.1±18.6	-3.201	0.001
共性模块	65.4±12.5	67.8±12.9	-1.561	0.122
特异性模块	79.9±11.8	85.5±10.1	-4.927	<0.001

表2

领域	MCID
总量表	2.3	5.8	9.3
躯体功能领域	3.2	8.1	12.9
心理功能领域	3.3	8.3	13.3
社会功能领域	2.6	6.5	10.4
共性症状与不良反应领域	3.5	8.6	13.8
共性模块	2.5	6.2	10.0
特异性模块	2.4	5.9	9.4

表3

领域	基线标准差	信度r	MCID
总量表	11.6	0.975	1.8	3.6	5.1
躯体功能领域	16.1	0.939	4.0	7.8	11.0
心理功能领域	16.6	0.942	4.0	7.8	11.1
社会功能领域	13.0	0.874	4.6	9.0	12.7
共性症状与不良反应领域	17.2	0.936	4.4	8.6	12.1
共性模块	12.5	0.978	1.9	3.6	5.1
特异性模块	11.8	0.931	3.1	6.1	8.6

表4

领域	基线标准差	信度r	MCID
总量表	11.6	0.975	2.6	5.1	7.2
躯体功能领域	16.1	0.939	5.6	11.0	15.6
心理功能领域	16.6	0.942	5.6	11.0	15.6
社会功能领域	13.0	0.874	6.5	12.7	18.0
共性症状与不良反应领域	17.2	0.936	6.2	12.1	17.1
共性模块	12.5	0.978	2.6	5.1	7.2
特异性模块	11.8	0.931	4.4	8.6	12.1

表5

领域	差值标准差	MCID
总量表	9.6	1.9	4.8	7.7
躯体功能领域	11.5	2.3	5.8	9.2
心理功能领域	14.4	2.9	7.2	11.5
社会功能领域	10.9	2.2	5.5	8.7
共性症状与不良反应领域	15.2	3.0	7.6	12.2
共性模块	10.4	2.1	5.2	8.3
特异性模块	9.8	2.0	4.9	7.8

表6

领域	稳定标准差	MCID
总量表	6.9	1.4	3.5	5.5
躯体功能领域	8.0	1.6	4.0	6.4
心理功能领域	17.5	3.5	8.8	14.0
社会功能领域	11.6	2.3	5.8	9.3
共性症状与不良反应领域	8.7	1.7	4.4	7.0
共性模块	9.0	1.8	4.5	7.2
特异性模块	5.3	1.1	2.7	4.2

表7

参考文献19

[1]	Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3):209-249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660. doi:10.3322/caac.21660
[2]	Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Abate D, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study[J]. JAMA Oncol, 2019, 5(12):1749-1768. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2996. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2996pmid:31560378
[3]	Cella D, Jensen SE, Webster K, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life in leukemia: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu) questionnaire[J]. Value Health, 2012, 15(8):1051-1058. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2210. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2210
[4]	Hillmen P, Janssens A, Babu KG, et al. Health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes of ofatumumab plus chlorambucil versus chlorambucil monotherapy in the COMPLEMENT 1 trial of patients with previously untreated CLL[J]. Acta Oncol, 2016, 55(9-10):1115-1120. DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2016.1205217. doi:10.1080/0284186X.2016.1205217pmid:27494089
[5]	吴婷, 吴洋, 万崇华, 等. 癌症患者生命质量测定量表体系之白血病量表的测量学特性评价[J]. 卫生软科学, 2019, 33(11):26-30. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2800.2019.11.006. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1003-2800.2019.11.006
[6]	Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference[J]. Control Clin Trials, 1989, 10(4):407-415. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6pmid:2691207
[7]	Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures[J]. Mayo Clin Proc, 2002, 77(4):371-383. DOI: 10.4065/77.4.371. doi:10.4065/77.4.371
[8]	Wyrwich KW, Norquist JM, Lenderking WR, et al. Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures[J]. Qual Life Res, 2013, 22(3):475-483. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0175-x. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0175-xpmid:22528240
[9]	Speer DC, Greenbaum PE. Five methods for computing significant individual client change and improvement rates: support for an individual growth curve approach[J]. J Consult Clin Psychol, 1995, 63(6):1044-1048. DOI: 10.1037//0022-006x.63.6.1044. doi:10.1037//0022-006x.63.6.1044pmid:8543708
[10]	Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ, et al. Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID)[J]. J Man Manip Ther, 2012, 20(3):160-166. DOI: 10.1179/2042618612Y.0000000001. doi:10.1179/2042618612Y.0000000001
[11]	Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, et al. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes[J]. Qual Life Res, 2005, 14(2):285-295. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2
[12]	Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2003, 56(5):395-407. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1. doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1pmid:12812812
[13]	薛红红, 杨铮, 万崇华, 等. 基于量表得分的最小临床重要性差值(MCID)制定方法[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2019, 36(3):436-440.
[14]	Fitzpatrick R, Norquist JM, Jenkinson C. Distribution-based criteria for change in health-related quality of life in Parkinson's disease[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2004, 57(1):40-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.07.003. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.07.003pmid:15019009
[15]	Nolan CM, Delogu V, Maddocks M, et al. Validity, responsiveness and minimum clinically important difference of the incremental shuttle walk in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a prospective study[J]. Thorax, 2017, thoraxjnl-2017-210589. DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210589. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210589
[16]	Maughan EF, Lewis JS. Outcome measures in chronic low back pain[J]. Eur Spine J, 2010, 19(9):1484-1494. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1353-6. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1353-6pmid:20397032
[17]	Storm FA, Petrarca M, Beretta E, et al. Minimum clinically important difference of gross motor function and gait endurance in children with motor impairment: a comparison of distribution-based approaches[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2020, 2020:2794036. DOI: 10.1155/2020/2794036. doi:10.1155/2020/2794036
[18]	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance[J]. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2006, 4:79. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-79. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-79
[19]	杨丽虹, 刘少南, 吴大嵘, 等. 最小临床意义差值的概念及其估算方法[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2020, 20(11):1345-1352. DOI: 10.7507/1672-2531.202007091. doi:10.7507/1672-2531.202007091