Sonia Sharma, Tiffany J Braley, Kevin N Alschuler, Dawn M Ehde, Anna L Kratz
{"title":"Determining minimal clinically important differences in ecological momentary assessment measures of fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis.","authors":"Sonia Sharma, Tiffany J Braley, Kevin N Alschuler, Dawn M Ehde, Anna L Kratz","doi":"10.1007/s11136-025-03948-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Fatigue is a common debilitating symptom of multiple sclerosis (MS). Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) provides a more reliable and sensitive assessment of fatigue outcomes relative to traditional recall surveys; however, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for EMA fatigue outcomes has not been established.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MCIDs for EMA fatigue intensity and fatigue interference (0-10 numerical rating scale) that were assessed as outcomes in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial of three fatigue interventions were determined using two statistical approaches. The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) were used within the anchor-based approach, and standard deviations (SD) and standard error of measurements (SEM) were examined within the distribution-based approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pre- and post-treatment EMA data from 336 individuals with MS (76.2% female, 71.1% relapsing-remitting MS, mean age 48.8 (± 11.7) years, mean duration of MS 12.2 (± 9.8) years) were included in the analysis. Percent complete EMA data (4 EMAs/day) for 7 days were comparable pre- and post-treatment for fatigue intensity and for fatigue interference. Using the PGIC and MFIS anchors, change in EMA scores averaged 0.94 and 1.04 for fatigue intensity and 0.62 and 1.04 for fatigue interference, respectively. The SD and SEM for EMA fatigue intensity were 0.75 and 1.19 and for EMA fatigue interference were 0.83 and 1.30, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combining two approaches, our study contributes foundational information regarding meaningful change on EMA measures of fatigue, enabling effective use of EMA to assess fatigue treatment outcomes in a person-centered manner.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03948-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Fatigue is a common debilitating symptom of multiple sclerosis (MS). Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) provides a more reliable and sensitive assessment of fatigue outcomes relative to traditional recall surveys; however, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for EMA fatigue outcomes has not been established.
Methods: MCIDs for EMA fatigue intensity and fatigue interference (0-10 numerical rating scale) that were assessed as outcomes in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial of three fatigue interventions were determined using two statistical approaches. The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) were used within the anchor-based approach, and standard deviations (SD) and standard error of measurements (SEM) were examined within the distribution-based approach.
Results: Pre- and post-treatment EMA data from 336 individuals with MS (76.2% female, 71.1% relapsing-remitting MS, mean age 48.8 (± 11.7) years, mean duration of MS 12.2 (± 9.8) years) were included in the analysis. Percent complete EMA data (4 EMAs/day) for 7 days were comparable pre- and post-treatment for fatigue intensity and for fatigue interference. Using the PGIC and MFIS anchors, change in EMA scores averaged 0.94 and 1.04 for fatigue intensity and 0.62 and 1.04 for fatigue interference, respectively. The SD and SEM for EMA fatigue intensity were 0.75 and 1.19 and for EMA fatigue interference were 0.83 and 1.30, respectively.
Conclusion: Combining two approaches, our study contributes foundational information regarding meaningful change on EMA measures of fatigue, enabling effective use of EMA to assess fatigue treatment outcomes in a person-centered manner.
期刊介绍:
Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences.
Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership.
This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.