{rfName}
Mi

Indexed in

License and use

Icono OpenAccess

Citations

46

Altmetrics

Analysis of institutional authors

Ruiz MAuthorPardo AAuthor

Share

January 21, 2021
Publications
>
Article
Sí

Minimally important difference of the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q)

Publicated to:BMC Medical Research Methodology. 11 (142): 142- - 2011-10-21 11(142), DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-142

Authors: Rejas J; Ruiz M; Pardo A; Soto J

Affiliations

Pfizer Inc. - Author
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid - Author

Abstract

Background: A previous study has documented the reliability and validity of the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q) in exploring patient satisfaction with medicines for chronic health conditions in routine medical practice, but the minimally important difference (MID) of this tool is as yet unknown. The objective of this research was to estimate the MID for the SATMED-Q total score and six constituent domains. Methods. The sample of patients (456 subjects, mean age 59 years, 53% male) used for testing psychometric properties was also used to assess MID. Item #14 of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) was used as an anchor reference since it directly explores satisfaction with medicine on a 7-point ordinal scale (from extremely satisfied to extremely dissatisfied, with a neutral category). Patients were classified into four categories according to responses to this item (extremely satisfied/dissatisfied, very satisfied/dissatisfied, satisfied/dissatisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (neutral), and calculations were made for the total score and each domain of the SATMED-Q using standardised scores. The mean absolute differences in total score (and domains) between the neutral category and the satisfied/dissatisfied category were considered to be the MID. Effect sizes (ES) were also computed. Results: The MID for the total score was 13.4 (ES = 0.91), while the domain values ranged from 10.3 (medical care domain, ES = 0.43) to 20.6 (impact on daily living, ES = 0.85). Mean differences in satisfaction (as measured by the total SATMED-Q score and domain scores) using the levels of satisfaction established by item #14 were significantly different, with F values ranging from 12.2 to 88.8 (p < 0.001 in all cases). Conclusion: The SATMED-Q was demonstrated to be responsive to different levels of patient satisfaction with therapy in chronically ill subjects. The MID obtained was 13.4 points for the overall normalised scoring scale, and between 10.3 and 20.6 points for domains. © 2011 Rejas et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Keywords

carechronic health conditionsclinical-significancehealth-statusintraindividual changesissuesmeaningfulmedicationmedicinesminimally important differencepatient-reported outcomessatisfactionsatmed-qChronic health conditionsMeaningful differenceMedicinesMinimally important differenceQuality-of-lifeSatisfactionSatmed-q

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal BMC Medical Research Methodology due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency WoS (JCR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2011, it was in position 12/76, thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Health Care Sciences & Services.

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from the Field Citation Ratio (FCR) of the Dimensions source, it yields a value of: 3.18, which indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: Dimensions Jul 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-07-05, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 16
  • Scopus: 19
  • Europe PMC: 11

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-07-05:

  • The use, from an academic perspective evidenced by the Altmetric agency indicator referring to aggregations made by the personal bibliographic manager Mendeley, gives us a total of: 29.
  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 29 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

  • The Total Score from Altmetric: 2.
  • The number of mentions on the social network X (formerly Twitter): 2 (Altmetric).

It is essential to present evidence supporting full alignment with institutional principles and guidelines on Open Science and the Conservation and Dissemination of Intellectual Heritage. A clear example of this is:

  • The work has been submitted to a journal whose editorial policy allows open Open Access publication.

Leadership analysis of institutional authors

This work has been carried out with international collaboration, specifically with researchers from: United States of America.