Minimally Important Difference of Health Assessment Questionnaire in Psoriatic Arthritis: Relating Thresholds of Improvement in Functional Ability to Patient-rated Importance and Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in function as measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and the meaningfulness of the changes, in importance and satisfaction, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: HAQ-DI was assessed at baseline and at Weeks 4, 12, and 24 in a randomized double-blind study of 205 patients with active PsA receiving etanercept 25 mg twice weekly or placebo. Concurrently, patients rated the importance of and satisfaction with their change in function on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all important/satisfied; 7 = extremely important/satisfied). Mean HAQ-DI improvement corresponding to ratings of minimally (2-3) or very (6-7) important or satisfied was determined using a posthoc linear mixed-model analysis. Patient importance ratings were used as an anchor to estimate minimally important difference (MID) for HAQ-DI; distribution-based estimates were also calculated. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients (69 placebo; 92 etanercept) had ≥ 1 HAQ-DI scores showing improvement from baseline and a corresponding importance or satisfaction rating. HAQ-DI improvements corresponding to importance scale ratings of 2 or 3 were 0.335 (95% CI 0.214, 0.455) and 0.360 (95% CI 0.263, 0.456), respectively, suggesting an MID of about 0.35. HAQ-DI improvements corresponding to satisfaction scale ratings of 2 and 3 were 0.293 (95% CI 0.230, 0.357) and 0.360 (95% CI 0.307, 0.413). For a given change in HAQ-DI, nearly two-thirds of patients indicated a lower rating for satisfaction than for importance. This trial was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT00317499). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests the MID for HAQ-DI in PsA is about 0.35. The results may also provide insight into patient satisfaction with changes in function and expectations for therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".