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. 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.
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.
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
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
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: 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
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: 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: 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