Janel Hanmer1, David Cella2, David Feeny3,4, Baruch Fischhoff5, Ron D Hays6, Rachel Hess7, Paul A Pilkonis8, Dennis Revicki9, Mark Roberts10,11, Joel Tsevat12, Lan Yu13. 1. Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 230 McKee Place, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. hanmerjz@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Economics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 4. Health Utilities Incorporated, Dundas, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Engineering and Public Policy and Institute for Politics and Strategy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 7. Division of Health System Innovation and Research, University of Utah Schools of the Health Sciences, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 9. Outcomes Research, Evidera, Bethesda, MD, USA. 10. Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 11. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 12. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and Cincinnati VA Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 13. Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 230 McKee Place, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to select a parsimonious subset of domains from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) that could be used for preference-based valuation. Domain selection criteria included face validity, comprehensiveness, and structural independence. METHODS: First, 9 health outcomes measurement experts selected domains appropriate for a general health measure using a modified Delphi procedure. Second, 50 adult community members assessed structural independence of domain pairs. For each pair, the participant was asked if it were possible to have simultaneously good functioning in domain 1 but poor functioning in domain 2, and vice versa. The community members also rated the relative importance of the domains. Finally, the experts selected domains, guided by community members' judgments of structural independence and importance. RESULTS: After 3 rounds of surveys, the experts agreed on 10 potential domains. The percent of pairs deemed structurally independent by community members ranged from 50 to 95 (mean = 78). Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression were retained because of their inclusion in existing preference-based measures and their importance to community members. Four other domains were added because they were important to community members and judged to be independent by at least 67% of respondents: Cognitive Function-Abilities; Fatigue; Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities; and Sleep Disturbance. CONCLUSION: With input from measurement experts and community members, we selected 7 PROMIS domains that can be used to create a preference-based score.
PURPOSE: We sought to select a parsimonious subset of domains from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) that could be used for preference-based valuation. Domain selection criteria included face validity, comprehensiveness, and structural independence. METHODS: First, 9 health outcomes measurement experts selected domains appropriate for a general health measure using a modified Delphi procedure. Second, 50 adult community members assessed structural independence of domain pairs. For each pair, the participant was asked if it were possible to have simultaneously good functioning in domain 1 but poor functioning in domain 2, and vice versa. The community members also rated the relative importance of the domains. Finally, the experts selected domains, guided by community members' judgments of structural independence and importance. RESULTS: After 3 rounds of surveys, the experts agreed on 10 potential domains. The percent of pairs deemed structurally independent by community members ranged from 50 to 95 (mean = 78). Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression were retained because of their inclusion in existing preference-based measures and their importance to community members. Four other domains were added because they were important to community members and judged to be independent by at least 67% of respondents: Cognitive Function-Abilities; Fatigue; Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities; and Sleep Disturbance. CONCLUSION: With input from measurement experts and community members, we selected 7 PROMIS domains that can be used to create a preference-based score.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health domains; Health status; Health-related quality of life; Multi-attribute utility instrument; PROMIS®; Utility
Authors: William T Riley; Nan Rothrock; Bonnie Bruce; Christopher Christodolou; Karon Cook; Elizabeth A Hahn; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David Feeny; William Furlong; George W Torrance; Charles H Goldsmith; Zenglong Zhu; Sonja DePauw; Margaret Denton; Michael Boyle Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: F Reed Johnson; Emily Lancsar; Deborah Marshall; Vikram Kilambi; Axel Mühlbacher; Dean A Regier; Brian W Bresnahan; Barbara Kanninen; John F P Bridges Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Dennis G Fryback; Nancy Cross Dunham; Mari Palta; Janel Hanmer; Jennifer Buechner; Dasha Cherepanov; Shani A Herrington; Ron D Hays; Robert M Kaplan; Theodore G Ganiats; David Feeny; Paul Kind Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Janel Hanmer; David Feeny; Baruch Fischhoff; Ron D Hays; Rachel Hess; Paul A Pilkonis; Dennis A Revicki; Mark S Roberts; Joel Tsevat; Lan Yu Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 3.186
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: 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: 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: Adam J Rose; Elizabeth Bayliss; Wenjing Huang; Lesley Baseman; Emily Butcher; Rosa-Elena García; Maria Orlando Edelen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ali Jalali; Danielle A Ryan; Kathryn E McCollister; Lisa A Marsch; Bruce R Schackman; Sean M Murphy Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-03
Authors: Wenjing Huang; Adam J Rose; Elizabeth Bayliss; Lesley Baseman; Emily Butcher; Rosa-Elena Garcia; Maria Orlando Edelen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 4.147