Determining minimal clinically important differences in ecological momentary assessment measures of fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
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.

确定多发性硬化症患者疲劳的生态瞬时评估措施的最小临床重要差异。
目的:疲劳是多发性硬化症(MS)常见的衰弱症状。相对于传统的召回调查,生态瞬时评估(EMA)提供了更可靠和敏感的疲劳结果评估;然而,EMA疲劳结果的最小临床重要差异(MCID)尚未确定。方法:在一项实用的随机临床试验中,采用两种统计方法确定EMA疲劳强度和疲劳干扰的MCIDs(0-10数值评定量表)作为评估结果。在基于锚点的方法中使用了患者总体变化印象(PGIC)和修正疲劳影响量表(MFIS),在基于分布的方法中检查了测量的标准偏差(SD)和标准误差(SEM)。结果:336例MS患者治疗前后的EMA数据(76.2%为女性,71.1%为复发缓解型MS,平均年龄48.8(±11.7)岁,平均MS病程12.2(±9.8)年)纳入分析。7天的完整EMA数据(4个EMA /天)在疲劳强度和疲劳干扰治疗前和治疗后具有可比性。使用PGIC和MFIS锚定,疲劳强度和疲劳干扰的平均EMA评分变化分别为0.94和1.04,0.62和1.04。EMA疲劳强度的SD和SEM分别为0.75和1.19,EMA疲劳干扰的SD和SEM分别为0.83和1.30。结论:结合两种方法,我们的研究提供了关于疲劳的EMA测量有意义的变化的基础信息,使EMA能够以人为中心的方式有效地使用来评估疲劳治疗结果。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信