Ron D Hays1, Karen L Spritzer2, William W Thompson3, David Cella4. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, UCLA, 911 Broxton Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA. drhays@g.ucla.edu. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, UCLA, 911 Broxton Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA. 3. National Center of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most commonly used self-reported health question asks people to rate their general health from excellent to poor. This is one of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health items. Four other items are used for scoring on the PROMIS global physical health scale. Because the single item is used on the majority of large national health surveys in the U.S., it is useful to construct scores that can be compared to U.S. general population norms. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the PROMIS global physical health scale score from the responses to the single excellent to poor self-rated health question for use in public health surveillance, research, and clinical assessment. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of 21,133 individuals, weighted to be representative of the U.S. general population. PARTICIPANTS: The PROMIS items were administered via a Web-based survey to 19,601 persons in a national panel and 1,532 subjects from PROMIS research sites. The average age of individuals in the sample was 53 years, 52 % were female, 80 % were non-Hispanic white, and 19 % had a high school degree or lower level of education. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMIS global physical health scale. KEY RESULTS: The product-moment correlation of the single item with the PROMIS global physical health scale score was 0.81. The estimated scale score based on responses to the single item ranged from 29 (poor self-rated health, 2.1 SDs worse than the general population mean) to 62 (excellent self-rated health, 1.2 SDs better than the general population mean) on a T-score metric (mean of 50). CONCLUSIONS: This item can be used to estimate scores for the PROMIS global physical health scale for use in monitoring population health and achieving public health objectives. The item may also be used for individual assessment, but its reliability (0.52) is lower than that of the PROMIS global health scale (0.81).
BACKGROUND: The most commonly used self-reported health question asks people to rate their general health from excellent to poor. This is one of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health items. Four other items are used for scoring on the PROMIS global physical health scale. Because the single item is used on the majority of large national health surveys in the U.S., it is useful to construct scores that can be compared to U.S. general population norms. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the PROMIS global physical health scale score from the responses to the single excellent to poor self-rated health question for use in public health surveillance, research, and clinical assessment. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of 21,133 individuals, weighted to be representative of the U.S. general population. PARTICIPANTS: The PROMIS items were administered via a Web-based survey to 19,601 persons in a national panel and 1,532 subjects from PROMIS research sites. The average age of individuals in the sample was 53 years, 52 % were female, 80 % were non-Hispanic white, and 19 % had a high school degree or lower level of education. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMIS global physical health scale. KEY RESULTS: The product-moment correlation of the single item with the PROMIS global physical health scale score was 0.81. The estimated scale score based on responses to the single item ranged from 29 (poor self-rated health, 2.1 SDs worse than the general population mean) to 62 (excellent self-rated health, 1.2 SDs better than the general population mean) on a T-score metric (mean of 50). CONCLUSIONS: This item can be used to estimate scores for the PROMIS global physical health scale for use in monitoring population health and achieving public health objectives. The item may also be used for individual assessment, but its reliability (0.52) is lower than that of the PROMIS global health scale (0.81).
Entities:
Keywords:
health status; outcomes; quality of life; survey research
Authors: Paul K J Han; Minjung Lee; Bryce B Reeve; Angela B Mariotto; Zhuoqiao Wang; Ron D Hays; K Robin Yabroff; Marie Topor; Eric J Feuer Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Thomas V Perneger; Angèle Gayet-Ageron; Delphine S Courvoisier; Thomas Agoritsas; Stéphane Cullati Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Honghu Liu; David Cella; Richard Gershon; Jie Shen; Leo S Morales; William Riley; Ron D Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Josephine M Norquist; Douglas J Watson; Qinfen Yu; John F Paolini; Kelly McQuarrie; Nancy C Santanello Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Nahal Mavaddat; Jose M Valderas; Rianne van der Linde; Kay Tee Khaw; Ann Louise Kinmonth Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Barry Dewitt; Baruch Fischhoff; Alexander L Davis; Stephen B Broomell; Mark S Roberts; Janel Hanmer Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Lixin Song; Ting Guan; Peiran Guo; Thomas C Keyserling; Courtney Van Houtven; Xianming Tan Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Carolyn A Mendez-Luck; G John Geldhof; Katherine P Anthony; W Neil Steers; Carol M Mangione; Ron D Hays Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2016-06-23
Authors: David Cella; Seung W Choi; David M Condon; Ben Schalet; Ron D Hays; Nan E Rothrock; Susan Yount; Karon F Cook; Richard C Gershon; Dagmar Amtmann; Darren A DeWalt; Paul A Pilkonis; Arthur A Stone; Kevin Weinfurt; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Value Health Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Anand S Iyer; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Stephanie M Ford; Sheri L Crump Tims; Elizabeth D Sockwell; Nataliya V Ivankova; Cynthia J Brown; Rodney O Tucker; Mark T Dransfield; Marie A Bakitas Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-08
Authors: Hillary D Lum; Rebecca L Sudore; Daniel D Matlock; Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga; Jacqueline Jones; Molly Nowels; Robert S Schwartz; Jean S Kutner; Cari R Levy Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2017 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Nancy J Carballo; Cathy A Alessi; Jennifer L Martin; Michael N Mitchell; Ron D Hays; Nananda Col; Emily S Patterson; Stella Jouldjian; Karen Josephson; Constance H Fung Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 3.393