Cargando…

Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system

OBJECTIVES: The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score is a recently developed summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). PROPr is a preference-based scoring system for seven PROMIS domains created using multiplicative multi-attribute utility theory. It serves...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hanmer, Janel, Dewitt, Barry, Yu, Lan, Tsevat, Joel, Roberts, Mark, Revicki, Dennis, Pilkonis, Paul A., Hess, Rachel, Hays, Ron D., Fischhoff, Baruch, Feeny, David, Condon, David, Cella, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6067708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30063733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201093
_version_ 1783343154195333120
author Hanmer, Janel
Dewitt, Barry
Yu, Lan
Tsevat, Joel
Roberts, Mark
Revicki, Dennis
Pilkonis, Paul A.
Hess, Rachel
Hays, Ron D.
Fischhoff, Baruch
Feeny, David
Condon, David
Cella, David
author_facet Hanmer, Janel
Dewitt, Barry
Yu, Lan
Tsevat, Joel
Roberts, Mark
Revicki, Dennis
Pilkonis, Paul A.
Hess, Rachel
Hays, Ron D.
Fischhoff, Baruch
Feeny, David
Condon, David
Cella, David
author_sort Hanmer, Janel
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score is a recently developed summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). PROPr is a preference-based scoring system for seven PROMIS domains created using multiplicative multi-attribute utility theory. It serves as a generic, societal, preference-based summary scoring system of health-related quality of life. This manuscript evaluates construct validity of PROPr in two large samples from the US general population. METHODS: We utilized 2 online panel surveys, the PROPr Estimation Survey and the Profiles-Health Utilities Index (HUI) Survey. Both included the PROPr measure, patient demographic information, self-reported chronic conditions, and other preference-based summary scores: the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and HUI in the PROPr Estimation Survey and the HUI in the Profiles-HUI Survey. The HUI was scored as both the Mark 2 and the Mark 3. Known-groups validity was evaluated using age- and gender-stratified mean scores and health condition impact estimates. Condition impact estimates were created using ordinary least squares regression in which a summary score was regressed on age, gender, and a single health condition. The coefficient for the health condition is the estimated effect on the preference score of having a condition vs. not having it. Convergent validity was evaluated using Pearson correlations between PROPr and other summary scores. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 983 respondents from the PROPr Estimation Survey and 3,000 from the Profiles-HUI survey. Age- and gender-stratified mean PROPr scores were lower than EQ-5D and HUI scores, with fewer subjects having scores corresponding to perfect health on the PROPr. In the PROPr Estimation survey, all 11 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using PROPr, 8 were statistically significant by the EQ-5D, 7 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 2, and 9 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 3. In the Profiles-HUI survey, all 21 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using summary scores from all three scoring systems. In these samples, the correlations between PROPr and the other summary measures ranged from 0.67 to 0.70. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence of construct validity for PROPr using samples from the US general population.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6067708
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60677082018-08-10 Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system Hanmer, Janel Dewitt, Barry Yu, Lan Tsevat, Joel Roberts, Mark Revicki, Dennis Pilkonis, Paul A. Hess, Rachel Hays, Ron D. Fischhoff, Baruch Feeny, David Condon, David Cella, David PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVES: The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score is a recently developed summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). PROPr is a preference-based scoring system for seven PROMIS domains created using multiplicative multi-attribute utility theory. It serves as a generic, societal, preference-based summary scoring system of health-related quality of life. This manuscript evaluates construct validity of PROPr in two large samples from the US general population. METHODS: We utilized 2 online panel surveys, the PROPr Estimation Survey and the Profiles-Health Utilities Index (HUI) Survey. Both included the PROPr measure, patient demographic information, self-reported chronic conditions, and other preference-based summary scores: the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and HUI in the PROPr Estimation Survey and the HUI in the Profiles-HUI Survey. The HUI was scored as both the Mark 2 and the Mark 3. Known-groups validity was evaluated using age- and gender-stratified mean scores and health condition impact estimates. Condition impact estimates were created using ordinary least squares regression in which a summary score was regressed on age, gender, and a single health condition. The coefficient for the health condition is the estimated effect on the preference score of having a condition vs. not having it. Convergent validity was evaluated using Pearson correlations between PROPr and other summary scores. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 983 respondents from the PROPr Estimation Survey and 3,000 from the Profiles-HUI survey. Age- and gender-stratified mean PROPr scores were lower than EQ-5D and HUI scores, with fewer subjects having scores corresponding to perfect health on the PROPr. In the PROPr Estimation survey, all 11 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using PROPr, 8 were statistically significant by the EQ-5D, 7 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 2, and 9 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 3. In the Profiles-HUI survey, all 21 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using summary scores from all three scoring systems. In these samples, the correlations between PROPr and the other summary measures ranged from 0.67 to 0.70. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence of construct validity for PROPr using samples from the US general population. Public Library of Science 2018-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6067708/ /pubmed/30063733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201093 Text en © 2018 Hanmer et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hanmer, Janel
Dewitt, Barry
Yu, Lan
Tsevat, Joel
Roberts, Mark
Revicki, Dennis
Pilkonis, Paul A.
Hess, Rachel
Hays, Ron D.
Fischhoff, Baruch
Feeny, David
Condon, David
Cella, David
Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system
title Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system
title_full Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system
title_fullStr Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system
title_full_unstemmed Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system
title_short Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system
title_sort cross-sectional validation of the promis-preference scoring system
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6067708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30063733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201093
work_keys_str_mv AT hanmerjanel crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT dewittbarry crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT yulan crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT tsevatjoel crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT robertsmark crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT revickidennis crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT pilkonispaula crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT hessrachel crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT haysrond crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT fischhoffbaruch crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT feenydavid crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT condondavid crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem
AT celladavid crosssectionalvalidationofthepromispreferencescoringsystem