Display options
Cite
Purcell A, Fleming J, Bennett S, et al. Determining the minimal clinically important difference criteria for the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in a radiotherapy population. Support Care Cancer. 2009;18(3):307-15doi: 10.1007/s00520-009-0653-z.
Purcell, A., Fleming, J., Bennett, S., Burmeister, B., & Haines, T. (2010). Determining the minimal clinically important difference criteria for the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in a radiotherapy population. Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 18(3), 307-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0653-z
Purcell, Amanda, et al. "Determining the minimal clinically important difference criteria for the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in a radiotherapy population." Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer vol. 18,3 (2010): 307-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-009-0653-z
Purcell A, Fleming J, Bennett S, Burmeister B, Haines T. Determining the minimal clinically important difference criteria for the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in a radiotherapy population. Support Care Cancer. 2010 Mar;18(3):307-15. doi: 10.1007/s00520-009-0653-z. Epub 2009 May 26. PMID: 19468758.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Support Care Cancer. 2010 Mar;18(3):307-15. doi: 10.1007/s00520-009-0653-z. Epub 2009 May 26.

Determining the minimal clinically important difference criteria for the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in a radiotherapy population.

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer

Amanda Purcell, Jennifer Fleming, Sally Bennett, Bryan Burmeister, Terry Haines

Affiliations

  1. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Univeristy of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane 4067, Australia. [email protected]

PMID: 19468758 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-009-0653-z

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) is a commonly used cancer-related fatigue assessment tool. Unlike other fatigue assessments, there are no published minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria for the MFI in cancer populations. MCID criteria determine the smallest change in scores that can be regarded as important, allowing clinicians and researchers to interpret the meaning of changes in patient's fatigue scores. This research aims to improve the clinical utility of the MFI by establishing MCID criteria for the MFI sub-scales in a radiotherapy population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred ten patients undergoing radiotherapy were recruited to a single-centre prospective cohort study. Patients were assessed at three time points, at the start of radiotherapy, the end of radiotherapy and 6 weeks after radiotherapy completion. Assessment consisted of four clinically relevant constructs: (1) treatment impact on fatigue, (2) health-related quality of life, (3) performance status and (4) occupational productivity. These constructs were used as external or anchor-based measures to determine MCIDs for each sub-scale of the MFI.

RESULTS: Multiple MCIDs were identified, each from a different perspective based on the constructs cited. Researchers seeking to use a generic MCID may wish to use a two-point reference for each MFI sub-scale as it was consistent across the pre- and post-radiotherapy comparison and occupational productivity anchors.

CONCLUSIONS: MCIDs validated in this study allow better interpretation of changes in MFI sub-scale scores and allow effect size calculations for determining sample size in future studies.

References

  1. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2002 Mar;41(3):317-25 - PubMed
  2. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug;133(8):511-8 - PubMed
  3. J Rheumatol. 2008 Apr;35(4):635-42 - PubMed
  4. Cancer. 1984 May 1;53(9):2002-7 - PubMed
  5. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):350-6 - PubMed
  6. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996 Summer;12(3):405-15 - PubMed
  7. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jul;61(7):705-13 - PubMed
  8. BMC Palliat Care. 2005 Nov 12;4:7 - PubMed
  9. Int J Nurs Stud. 2005 May;42(4):377-86 - PubMed
  10. Rays. 2005 Apr-Jun;30(2):197-203 - PubMed
  11. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 Dec 21;5:70 - PubMed
  12. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(5):365-84 - PubMed
  13. Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15 - PubMed
  14. Br J Cancer. 1998 Oct;78(7):899-906 - PubMed
  15. Biol Res Nurs. 2004 Jan;5(3):203-10 - PubMed
  16. Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):337-43 - PubMed
  17. Support Care Cancer. 2001 Jul;9(5):355-60 - PubMed
  18. J Psychosom Res. 1995 Apr;39(3):315-25 - PubMed
  19. Nurs Res. 2000 Jul-Aug;49(4):181-90 - PubMed
  20. Oncologist. 2000;5(5):353-60 - PubMed
  21. Oncologist. 2007;12 Suppl 1:11-21 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 May;56(5):395-407 - PubMed
  23. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2002 Dec;24(6):547-61 - PubMed
  24. Br J Cancer. 1998 Oct;78(7):907-12 - PubMed
  25. Oncologist. 2007;12 Suppl 1:4-10 - PubMed
  26. Disabil Rehabil. 2007 Nov 30;29(22):1665-70 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types