Sherri L LaVela1,2, Bella Etingen3, Scott Miskevics3, David Cella4. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Health Services Research & Development, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, IL, USA. sherri.lavela@va.gov. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. sherri.lavela@va.gov. 3. Department of Veterans Affairs, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Health Services Research & Development, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, IL, USA. 4. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: PROMIS® items have not been widely or systematically used within the Veterans Health Administration (VA). OBJECTIVE: To examine the concordance of PROMIS-29® scores and medical record diagnosis in US Veterans and to compare Veteran scores relative to US population norms. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional multi-site survey of Veterans (n = 3221) provided sociodemographic and PROMIS-29® domain data. Electronic medical records provided health condition (depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, pain disorders) diagnosis data. MAIN MEASURES: For each domain, we calculated PROMIS® standardized T scores and used t tests to compare PROMIS® scores for Veterans diagnosed with each targeted health condition vs. those without that documented clinical diagnosis and compare mean Veterans' PROMIS-29® with US adult population norms. KEY RESULTS: Veterans with (vs. without) a depression diagnosis reported significantly higher PROMIS® depression scores (60.3 vs. 49.6, p < .0001); those with an anxiety diagnosis (vs. without) reported higher average PROMIS® anxiety scores (62.7 vs. 50.9, p < .0001). Veterans with (vs. without) a pain disorder reported higher pain interference (65.3 vs. 57.7, p < .0001) and pain intensity (6.4 vs. 4.4, p < .0001). Veterans with (vs. without) a sleep disorder reported higher sleep disturbance (55.8 vs. 51.2, p < .0001) and fatigue (57.5 vs. 51.8, p < .0001) PROMIS® scores. Compared with the general population norms, Veterans scored worse across all PROMIS-29® domains. CONCLUSIONS: We found that PROMIS-29® domains are selectively sensitive to expected differences between clinically-defined groups, suggesting their appropriateness as indicators of condition symptomology among Veterans. Notably, Veterans scored worse across all PROMIS-29(R) domains compared with population norms. Taken collectively, our findings suggest that PROMIS-29® may be a useful tool for VA providers to assess patient's physical and mental health, and because PROMIS® items are normed to the general population, this offers a way to compare the health of Veterans with the adult population at large and identify disparate areas for intervention.
BACKGROUND: PROMIS® items have not been widely or systematically used within the Veterans Health Administration (VA). OBJECTIVE: To examine the concordance of PROMIS-29® scores and medical record diagnosis in US Veterans and to compare Veteran scores relative to US population norms. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional multi-site survey of Veterans (n = 3221) provided sociodemographic and PROMIS-29® domain data. Electronic medical records provided health condition (depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, pain disorders) diagnosis data. MAIN MEASURES: For each domain, we calculated PROMIS® standardized T scores and used t tests to compare PROMIS® scores for Veterans diagnosed with each targeted health condition vs. those without that documented clinical diagnosis and compare mean Veterans' PROMIS-29® with US adult population norms. KEY RESULTS: Veterans with (vs. without) a depression diagnosis reported significantly higher PROMIS® depression scores (60.3 vs. 49.6, p < .0001); those with an anxiety diagnosis (vs. without) reported higher average PROMIS® anxiety scores (62.7 vs. 50.9, p < .0001). Veterans with (vs. without) a pain disorder reported higher pain interference (65.3 vs. 57.7, p < .0001) and pain intensity (6.4 vs. 4.4, p < .0001). Veterans with (vs. without) a sleep disorder reported higher sleep disturbance (55.8 vs. 51.2, p < .0001) and fatigue (57.5 vs. 51.8, p < .0001) PROMIS® scores. Compared with the general population norms, Veterans scored worse across all PROMIS-29® domains. CONCLUSIONS: We found that PROMIS-29® domains are selectively sensitive to expected differences between clinically-defined groups, suggesting their appropriateness as indicators of condition symptomology among Veterans. Notably, Veterans scored worse across all PROMIS-29(R) domains compared with population norms. Taken collectively, our findings suggest that PROMIS-29® may be a useful tool for VA providers to assess patient's physical and mental health, and because PROMIS® items are normed to the general population, this offers a way to compare the health of Veterans with the adult population at large and identify disparate areas for intervention.
Entities:
Keywords:
PROMIS; Veterans; health-related quality of life; mental health; patient-reported outcomes; physical health; social role
Authors: Monique E Hinchcliff; Jennifer L Beaumont; Mary A Carns; Sofia Podlusky; Krishna Thavarajah; John Varga; David Cella; Rowland W Chang Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 4.666
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: Benjamin D Schalet; Nan E Rothrock; Ron D Hays; Lewis E Kazis; Karon F Cook; Joshua P Rutsohn; David Cella Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alyson J Littman; Edward J Boyko; Mary Lou Thompson; Jodie K Haselkorn; Bruce J Sangeorzan; David E Arterburn Journal: J Rehabil Res Dev Date: 2014
Authors: Jin-Shei Lai; Jennifer L Beaumont; Sally E Jensen; Karen Kaiser; David L Van Brunt; Amy H Kao; Shih-Yin Chen Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Benjamin D Schalet; Paul A Pilkonis; Lan Yu; Nathan Dodds; Kelly L Johnston; Susan Yount; William Riley; David Cella Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Christopher R Erbes; John Ferguson; Kalia Yang; Sara Koehler-McNicholas; Melissa A Polusny; Brian J Hafner; Allen W Heinemann; Jessica Hill; Tonya Rich; Nicole Walker; Marilyn Weber; Andrew Hansen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Christi S Ulmer; Felicia McCant; Karen M Stechuchak; Maren Olsen; Hayden B Bosworth Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 4.324
Authors: Susan N Hastings; Elizabeth P Mahanna; Theodore S Z Berkowitz; Valerie A Smith; Ashley L Choate; Jaime M Hughes; Juliessa Pavon; Katina Robinson; Cristina Hendrix; Courtney Van Houtven; Pamela Gentry; Cynthia Rose; Brenda L Plassman; Guy Potter; Eugene Oddone Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 7.538