Benjamin D Schalet1, Ron D Hays2, Sally E Jensen3, Jennifer L Beaumont3, James F Fries4, David Cella3. 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. Electronic address: b-schalet@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1736, USA. 3. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function measures using longitudinal data collected in six chronic health conditions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), major depressive disorder (MDD), back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic heart failure (CHF), and cancer completed the PROMIS Physical Function computerized adaptive test or fixed-length short form at baseline and at the end of clinically relevant follow-up intervals. Anchor items were also administered to assess change in physical function and general health. Linear mixed-effects models and standardized response means were estimated at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1,415 individuals participated (COPD n = 121; CHF n = 57; back pain n = 218; MDD n = 196; RA n = 521; cancer n = 302). The PROMIS Physical Function scores improved significantly for treatment of CHF and back pain patients but not for patients with MDD or COPD. Most of the patient subsamples that reported improvement or worsening on the anchors showed a corresponding positive or negative change in PROMIS Physical Function. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that the PROMIS Physical Function measures are sensitive to change in intervention studies where physical function is expected to change and able to distinguish among different clinical samples. The results inform the estimation of meaningful change, enabling comparative effectiveness research.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function measures using longitudinal data collected in six chronic health conditions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), major depressive disorder (MDD), back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic heart failure (CHF), and cancer completed the PROMIS Physical Function computerized adaptive test or fixed-length short form at baseline and at the end of clinically relevant follow-up intervals. Anchor items were also administered to assess change in physical function and general health. Linear mixed-effects models and standardized response means were estimated at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1,415 individuals participated (COPD n = 121; CHF n = 57; back pain n = 218; MDD n = 196; RA n = 521; cancer n = 302). The PROMIS Physical Function scores improved significantly for treatment of CHF and back painpatients but not for patients with MDD or COPD. Most of the patient subsamples that reported improvement or worsening on the anchors showed a corresponding positive or negative change in PROMIS Physical Function. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that the PROMIS Physical Function measures are sensitive to change in intervention studies where physical function is expected to change and able to distinguish among different clinical samples. The results inform the estimation of meaningful change, enabling comparative effectiveness research.
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: A L Stewart; S Greenfield; R D Hays; K Wells; W H Rogers; S D Berry; E A McGlynn; J E Ware Journal: JAMA Date: 1989-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Matthias Rose; Jakob B Bjorner; Barbara Gandek; Bonnie Bruce; James F Fries; John E Ware Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Jacquelyn S Pennings; Clinton J Devin; Inamullah Khan; Mohamad Bydon; Anthony L Asher; Kristin R Archer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Karen J Sherman; Robert D Wellman; Rene J Hawkes; Elizabeth A Phelan; Tamsin Lee; Judith A Turner Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Janna S E Ottenhoff; Joost T P Kortlever; Emily Z Boersma; David C Laverty; David Ring; Matthew D Driscoll Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Felix Fischer; Chris Gibbons; Joël Coste; Jose M Valderas; Matthias Rose; Alain Leplège Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jennifer L Beebe-Dimmer; Julie J Ruterbusch; Felicity W K Harper; Tara M Baird; David G Finlay; Andrew G Rundle; Stephanie S Pandolfi; Theresa A Hastert; Kendra L Schwartz; Gerold Bepler; Michael S Simon; Julia Mantey; Judy Abrams; Teri L Albrecht; Ann G Schwartz Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Meghan Reading Turchioe; Lisa V Grossman; Dawon Baik; Christopher S Lee; Mathew S Maurer; Parag Goyal; Monika M Safford; Ruth M Masterson Creber Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 5.562