Literature DB >> 29651650

Evaluation of options for presenting health-states from PROMIS® item banks for valuation exercises.

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 Yu10.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Health status descriptive systems based on item response theory (IRT), such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), have item banks to measure domains of health. We developed a method to present such banks for health-state valuation.
METHODS: We evaluated four different presentation approaches: a single item (1S), 2 items presented separately (2S), 2 items presented together (2T), or 5 items presented together (5T). We evaluated these four approaches in three PROMIS item banks (depression, physical function, and sleep disturbance). Adult community members valued health-state descriptions using the visual analog scale and standard gamble methods. We compared the approaches by the range of item bank theta scores captured, participants' assessments of difficulty (1 = very easy to 7 = very hard), and exit interviews.
RESULTS: Participants (n = 118) ranged in age from 18 to 71; 63% were female and 54% were white. The 1S approach captured the smallest range of theta scores. A monotonic relationship between theta score and mean standard gamble estimate was found with all approaches except 2S. Across all 3 item banks, mean difficulty assessments were 2.35 (1S), 2.69 (2T), 2.78 (5T), and 2.80 (2S). In exit interviews, participants generally found all four approaches similarly meaningful and realistic.
CONCLUSIONS: Creating health descriptions by presenting 2 items maximized the range of theta while minimizing difficulty and maintaining a monotonic relationship with utility estimates. We recommend this approach for valuation of IRT-based descriptive systems such as PROMIS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health-state descriptions; Preference-based scores; Utilities; Valuation of health-states

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29651650      PMCID: PMC6611549          DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-1852-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  17 in total

1.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  The Ironson-woods Spirituality/Religiousness Index is associated with long survival, health behaviors, less distress, and low cortisol in people with HIV/AIDS.

Authors:  Gail Ironson; George F Solomon; Elizabeth G Balbin; Conall O'Cleirigh; Annie George; Mahendra Kumar; David Larson; Teresa E Woods
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2002

Review 3.  Health status assessment methods for adults: past accomplishments and future challenges.

Authors:  C A McHorney
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 21.981

4.  Creating meaningful cut-scores for Neuro-QOL measures of fatigue, physical functioning, and sleep disturbance using standard setting with patients and providers.

Authors:  Karon F Cook; David E Victorson; David Cella; Benjamin D Schalet; Deborah Miller
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-08-23       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet panel.

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

6.  The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008.

Authors:  David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): depression, anxiety, and anger.

Authors:  Paul A Pilkonis; Seung W Choi; Steven P Reise; Angela M Stover; William T Riley; David Cella
Journal:  Assessment       Date:  2011-06-21

8.  Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy - general.

Authors:  Deborah Dobrez; David Cella; A Simon Pickard; Jin-Shei Lai; Angel Nickolov
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.725

9.  The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency.

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

10.  The PROMIS of QALYs.

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

View more
  5 in total

1.  Exclusion Criteria as Measurements II: Effects on Utility Functions.

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

2.  Computing PROPr Utility Scores for PROMIS® Profile Instruments.

Authors:  Barry Dewitt; Hawre Jalal; Janel Hanmer
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system.

Authors:  Janel Hanmer; Barry Dewitt; Lan Yu; Joel Tsevat; Mark Roberts; Dennis Revicki; Paul A Pilkonis; Rachel Hess; Ron D Hays; Baruch Fischhoff; David Feeny; David Condon; David Cella
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Psychometric properties of the PROMIS Preference score (PROPr) in patients with rheumatological and psychosomatic conditions.

Authors:  C P Klapproth; F Fischer; M Merbach; M Rose; A Obbarius
Journal:  BMC Rheumatol       Date:  2022-03-07

5.  A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets.

Authors:  Tianxin Pan; Brendan Mulhern; Rosalie Viney; Richard Norman; Janel Hanmer; Nancy Devlin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-11-17       Impact factor: 4.981

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.