Nan E Rothrock1, Karon F Cook2, Mary O'Connor2, David Cella2, Ashley Wilder Smith3, Susan E Yount2. 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. n-rothrock@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Outcomes Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) physical function, cognitive function, and sleep disturbance measures are increasingly used in cancer care. However, there is limited guidance for interpreting the clinical meaning of scores. This study aimed to apply bookmarking, a standard setting methodology, to identify PROMIS score thresholds in the context of cancer care. METHODS: Using item parameters, we constructed vignettes of five items covering the range of possible scores. Focus groups were held with cancer care providers and people with cancer. Terminology for categorizing levels of severity was explored. Participants rank ordered vignettes by severity and then placed bookmarks between vignettes representing different levels of severity. Group discussion was held until consensus on bookmark placement was reached. RESULTS: Clinicians selected "within normal limits," "mild," "moderate," and "severe" to describe levels of severity. Both patients and clinicians were able to apply these labels, but there was not unanimous support for any set of descriptors. Clinicians and patients agreed on all severity thresholds for sleep disturbance. For cognitive and physical function, clinicians and patients agreed on the threshold between "within normal limits" and "mild." However, patients required greater dysfunction than clinicians before applying "moderate" and "severe" labels. CONCLUSIONS: Bookmarking can be applied to develop provisional score interpretation for PROMIS measures. Patients and clinicians were frequently consistent in their bookmark placement. When there was variance, patients required more dysfunction before assigning more severity. Additional research with other cancer samples is needed to evaluate the replicability and generalizability of our findings.
PURPOSE:Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) physical function, cognitive function, and sleep disturbance measures are increasingly used in cancer care. However, there is limited guidance for interpreting the clinical meaning of scores. This study aimed to apply bookmarking, a standard setting methodology, to identify PROMIS score thresholds in the context of cancer care. METHODS: Using item parameters, we constructed vignettes of five items covering the range of possible scores. Focus groups were held with cancer care providers and people with cancer. Terminology for categorizing levels of severity was explored. Participants rank ordered vignettes by severity and then placed bookmarks between vignettes representing different levels of severity. Group discussion was held until consensus on bookmark placement was reached. RESULTS: Clinicians selected "within normal limits," "mild," "moderate," and "severe" to describe levels of severity. Both patients and clinicians were able to apply these labels, but there was not unanimous support for any set of descriptors. Clinicians and patients agreed on all severity thresholds for sleep disturbance. For cognitive and physical function, clinicians and patients agreed on the threshold between "within normal limits" and "mild." However, patients required greater dysfunction than clinicians before applying "moderate" and "severe" labels. CONCLUSIONS: Bookmarking can be applied to develop provisional score interpretation for PROMIS measures. Patients and clinicians were frequently consistent in their bookmark placement. When there was variance, patients required more dysfunction before assigning more severity. Additional research with other cancer samples is needed to evaluate the replicability and generalizability of our findings.
Authors: Lynne I Wagner; Julian Schink; Michael Bass; Shalini Patel; Maria Varela Diaz; Nan Rothrock; Timothy Pearman; Richard Gershon; Frank J Penedo; Steven Rosen; David Cella Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David Cella; Seung Choi; Sofia Garcia; Karon F Cook; Sarah Rosenbloom; Jin-Shei Lai; Donna Surges Tatum; Richard Gershon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Barbara Given; Charles W Given; Alla Sikorskii; Sangchoon Jeon; Ruth McCorkle; Victoria Champion; David Decker Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Vivek Nagaraja; Constance Mara; Puja P Khanna; Rajaie Namas; Amber Young; David A Fox; Timothy Laing; William J McCune; Carol Dodge; Debra Rizzo; Maha Almackenzie; Dinesh Khanna Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Martin G Seneviratne; Selen Bozkurt; Manali I Patel; Tina Seto; James D Brooks; Douglas W Blayney; Allison W Kurian; Tina Hernandez-Boussard Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Katherine C Smith; Elissa T Bantug; Elliott E Tolbert; Amanda L Blackford; Michael D Brundage Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mary D Slavin; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider; Amy Acton; Flor Amaya; Cayla Saret; Emily Ohrtman; Audrey Wolfe; Pengsheng Ni; Lewis E Kazis Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Maria O Edelen; Jordan M Harrison; Anthony Rodriguez; Rebecca Weir; Jin-Shei Lai; Michelle M Langer; Janel Hanmer Journal: Gerontol Geriatr Med Date: 2022-08-13
Authors: Daniel L Hall; Beverly J Levine; Elizabeth Jeter; Allison Chandler; Janet A Tooze; Jenna Duffecy; David Victorson; William Gradishar; Joseph Leach; Thomas Saphner; Mary Lou Smith; Frank Penedo; David C Mohr; David Cella; Lynne I Wagner Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2022-08-05