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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |