Benjamin D Schalet1, Paul A Pilkonis2, Lan Yu3, Nathan Dodds2, Kelly L Johnston2, Susan Yount4, William Riley5, David Cella4. 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: b-schalet@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. National Institute for Health, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness to change of the PROMIS negative affect measures (depression, anxiety, and anger) using longitudinal data collected in six chronic health conditions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD), back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic heart failure (CHF), and cancer completed PROMIS negative affect instruments as computerized adaptive test or as fixed-length short form at baseline and a clinically relevant follow-up interval. Participants also completed global ratings of health. Linear mixed effects models and standardized response means (SRM) were estimated at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 903 individuals participated (back pain, n = 218; cancer, n = 304; CHF, n = 60; COPD, n = 125; MDD, n = 196). All three negative affect instruments improved significantly for treatments of depression and pain. Depression improved for CHF patients (anxiety and anger not administered), whereas anxiety improved significantly in COPD groups (stable and exacerbation). Response to treatment was not assessed in cancer. Subgroups of patients reporting better or worse health showed a corresponding positive or negative average SRM for negative affect across samples. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that the PROMIS negative affect scores are sensitive to change in intervention studies in which negative affect is expected to change. These results inform the estimation of meaningful change and enable comparative effectiveness research.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness to change of the PROMIS negative affect measures (depression, anxiety, and anger) using longitudinal data collected in six chronic health conditions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD), back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic heart failure (CHF), and cancer completed PROMIS negative affect instruments as computerized adaptive test or as fixed-length short form at baseline and a clinically relevant follow-up interval. Participants also completed global ratings of health. Linear mixed effects models and standardized response means (SRM) were estimated at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 903 individuals participated (back pain, n = 218; cancer, n = 304; CHF, n = 60; COPD, n = 125; MDD, n = 196). All three negative affect instruments improved significantly for treatments of depression and pain. Depression improved for CHFpatients (anxiety and anger not administered), whereas anxiety improved significantly in COPD groups (stable and exacerbation). Response to treatment was not assessed in cancer. Subgroups of patients reporting better or worse health showed a corresponding positive or negative average SRM for negative affect across samples. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that the PROMIS negative affect scores are sensitive to change in intervention studies in which negative affect is expected to change. These results inform the estimation of meaningful change and enable comparative effectiveness research.
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: Morgen A R Kelly; Jennifer Q Morse; Angela Stover; Tara Hofkens; Emily Huisman; Stuart Shulman; Susan V Eisen; Sara J Becker; Kevin Weinfurt; Elaine Boland; Paul A Pilkonis Journal: Br J Clin Psychol Date: 2011-03
Authors: Craig D Blinderman; Peter Homel; J Andrew Billings; Sharon Tennstedt; Russell K Portenoy Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2009-02-20 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Karon F Cook; Sally E Jensen; Benjamin D Schalet; Jennifer L Beaumont; Dagmar Amtmann; Susan Czajkowski; Darren A Dewalt; James F Fries; Paul A Pilkonis; Bryce B Reeve; Arthur A Stone; Kevin P Weinfurt; David Cella Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Miguel Divo; Claudia Cote; Juan P de Torres; Ciro Casanova; Jose M Marin; Victor Pinto-Plata; Javier Zulueta; Carlos Cabrera; Jorge Zagaceta; Gary Hunninghake; Bartolome Celli Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Dennis A Revicki; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Jeff A Sloan; William R Lenderking; Neil K Aaronson Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2006-09-27 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Susan E Yount; Jennifer L Beaumont; Shih-Yin Chen; Karen Kaiser; Katy Wortman; David L Van Brunt; Jeffrey Swigris; David Cella Journal: Lung Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: Teresa A Lillis; John Burns; Frances Aranda; Yanina A Purim-Shem-Tov; Stephen Bruehl; Jean C Beckham; Stevan E Hobfoll Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Andrea K Graham; Alexa Minc; Erin Staab; David G Beiser; Robert D Gibbons; Neda Laiteerapong Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Claire E Wilcox; Joshua Clifford; Josef Ling; Andrew R Mayer; Rose Bigelow; Michael P Bogenschutz; J Scott Tonigan Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Manish K Jha; Arman Qamar; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Dennis S Charney; James W Murrough Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 24.094