The Concept of Clinically Meaningful Difference in Health-Related Quality-of-Life Research

Published in: PharmacoEconomics, v. 18, no. 5, Nov. 2000, p. 419-423

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2000

by Ron D. Hays, J. Michael Woolley

Read More

Access further information on this document at pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

It is generally believed that small differences in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) may be statistically significant yet clinically unimportant. The concept of the minimal clinically meaningful difference (MCID) has been proposed to refer to the smallest difference in a HR-QOL score that is considered to be worthwhile or clinically important. However, there is danger in oversimplification in asking the question: what is the MCID on this HR-QOL instrument? The authors argue that the attempt to define a single MCID is problematic for a number of reasons and recommend caution in the search for the MCID holy grail. Specifically, absolute thresholds are suspect because they ignore the cost or resources required to produce a change in HR-QOL. In addition, there are several practical problems in estimating the MCID, including: (i) the estimated magnitude varies depending on the distributional index and the external standard or anchor; (ii) the amount of change might depend on the direction of change; and (iii) the meaning of change depends on where you start (baseline value).

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.