Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (22)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peto, V.
Right arrow Articles by Fitzpatrick, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Peto, V.
Right arrow Articles by Fitzpatrick, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Age and Ageing 2001; 30: 299-302
© 2001, British Geriatrics Society

Research papers

Determining minimally important differences for the PDQ-39 Parkinson's disease questionnaire

Viv Peto, Crispin Jenkinson and Ray Fitzpatrick1

Health Services Research Unit, Department of Public Health, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK
1 Department of Public Health, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Abstract

Objective: to determine minimally important differences for dimensions of the PDQ-39, a 39-item Parkinson's disease questionnaire. A minimally important difference is defined as the smallest change between two scores that is subjectively meaningful to patients. Data on minimally important differences are essential for the calculation of sample sizes in trials and surveys.

Methods: we conducted a postal survey of randomly selected members of 13 local branches of the Parkinson's Disease Society, asking them to complete the PDQ-39 on two occasions, 6 months apart. On the first occasion respondents received the PDQ-39, demographic questions and a request to provide their name and address if they were willing to take part in the follow-up survey. After 6 months, we sent those who had agreed another copy of the questionnaire and also asked them to indicate how much change they had experienced since baseline in overall health and in each of the eight domains of the questionnaire.

Results: we calculated minimally important difference for each dimension and the index score for those reporting minor change since baseline. The minimally important difference varied across dimensions.

Conclusions: these results indicate the minimum magnitude of change that should be sought when designing studies to evaluate change over time in Parkinson's disease. Since minimally important differences differ across dimensions, those designing studies in which sample size calculations are based on the PDQ-39 as an outcome measure should select the dimension which is the primary variable of interest.

Keywords: minimally important differences, Parkinson's disease questionnaire, self-reported health status


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Neurol. Neurosurg. PsychiatryHome page
C E Clarke, A Furmston, E Morgan, S Patel, C Sackley, M Walker, S Bryan, and K Wheatley
Pilot randomised controlled trial of occupational therapy to optimise independence in Parkinson's disease: the PD OT trial
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, September 1, 2009; 80(9): 976 - 978.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurol. Neurosurg. PsychiatryHome page
D Grosset, L Taurah, D J Burn, D MacMahon, A Forbes, K Turner, A Bowron, R Walker, L Findley, O Foster, et al.
A multicentre longitudinal observational study of changes in self reported health status in people with Parkinson's disease left untreated at diagnosis
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, May 1, 2007; 78(5): 465 - 469.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Age AgeingHome page
C. Jenkinson, C. Heffernan, H. Doll, and R. Fitzpatrick
The Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39): evidence for a method of imputing missing data
Age Ageing, September 1, 2006; 35(5): 497 - 502.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
G. Deuschl, C. Schade-Brittinger, P. Krack, J. Volkmann, H. Schafer, K. Botzel, C. Daniels, A. Deutschlander, U. Dillmann, W. Eisner, et al.
A randomized trial of deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease.
N. Engl. J. Med., August 31, 2006; 355(9): 896 - 908.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Chronic IllnessHome page
C. Heffernan and C. Jenkinson
Review Paper: Measuring outcomes for neurological disorders: a review of disease-specific health status instruments for three degenerative neurological conditions
Chronic Illness, June 1, 2005; 1(2): 131 - 142.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
C Jenkinson, V Peto, G Jones, and R Fitzpatrick
Interpreting change scores on the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40)
Clinical Rehabilitation, April 1, 2003; 17(4): 380 - 385.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
B. Jarman, B. Hurwitz, A. Cook, M. Bajekal, and A. Lee
Effects of community based nurses specialising in Parkinson's disease on health outcome and costs: randomised controlled trial
BMJ, May 4, 2002; 324(7345): 1072 - 1072.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.