Barry Dewitt1, Hawre Jalal2, Janel Hanmer3. 1. Department of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: barrydewitt@cmu.edu. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Profile instruments measure health status on 8 PROMIS domains. The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score provides a preference-based summary score for health states defined by 7 PROMIS domains. The Profile and PROPr share 6 domains; PROPr has 1 unique domain (Cognitive Function-Abilities), and the Profile has 2 unique domains (Anxiety and Pain Intensity). We produce an equation for calculating PROPr utility scores with Profile data. METHODS: We used data from 3982 members of US online survey panels who have scores on all 9 PROMIS domains. We used a 70%/30% split for model fit/validation. Using root-mean-square error and mean error on the utility scale, we compared models for predicting the missing Cognitive Function score via (A) the population average; (B) a score representing excellent cognitive function; (C) a score representing poor cognitive function; (D) a score predicted from linear regression of the 8 profile domains; and (E) a score predicted from a Bayesian neural network of the 8 profile domains. RESULTS: The mean errors in the validation sample on the PROPr scale (which ranges from -0.022 to 1.00) for the models were: (A) 0.025, (B) 0.067, (C) -0.23, (D) 0.018, and (E) 0.018. The root-mean-square errors were: (A) 0.097, (B) 0.12, (C) 0.29, (D) 0.095, and (E) 0.094. CONCLUSION: Although the Bayesian neural network had the best root-mean-square error for producing PROPr utility scores from Profile instruments, linear regression performs almost as well and is easier to use. We recommend the linear model for producing PROPr utility scores for PROMIS Profiles.
OBJECTIVES: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) Profile instruments measure health status on 8 PROMIS domains. The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score provides a preference-based summary score for health states defined by 7 PROMIS domains. The Profile and PROPr share 6 domains; PROPr has 1 unique domain (Cognitive Function-Abilities), and the Profile has 2 unique domains (Anxiety and Pain Intensity). We produce an equation for calculating PROPr utility scores with Profile data. METHODS: We used data from 3982 members of US online survey panels who have scores on all 9 PROMIS domains. We used a 70%/30% split for model fit/validation. Using root-mean-square error and mean error on the utility scale, we compared models for predicting the missing Cognitive Function score via (A) the population average; (B) a score representing excellent cognitive function; (C) a score representing poor cognitive function; (D) a score predicted from linear regression of the 8 profile domains; and (E) a score predicted from a Bayesian neural network of the 8 profile domains. RESULTS: The mean errors in the validation sample on the PROPr scale (which ranges from -0.022 to 1.00) for the models were: (A) 0.025, (B) 0.067, (C) -0.23, (D) 0.018, and (E) 0.018. The root-mean-square errors were: (A) 0.097, (B) 0.12, (C) 0.29, (D) 0.095, and (E) 0.094. CONCLUSION: Although the Bayesian neural network had the best root-mean-square error for producing PROPr utility scores from Profile instruments, linear regression performs almost as well and is easier to use. We recommend the linear model for producing PROPr utility scores for PROMIS Profiles.
Authors: Janel Hanmer; David Cella; David Feeny; Baruch Fischhoff; Ron D Hays; Rachel Hess; Paul A Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Mark Roberts; Joel Tsevat; Lan Yu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Janel Hanmer; David Cella; David Feeny; Baruch Fischhoff; Ron D Hays; Rachel Hess; Paul A Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Mark Roberts; Joel Tsevat; Lan Yu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-08-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Barry Dewitt; David Feeny; Baruch Fischhoff; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Rachel Hess; Paul A Pilkonis; Dennis A Revicki; Mark S Roberts; Joel Tsevat; Lan Yu; Janel Hanmer Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 2.583
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: Ron D Hays; Dennis A Revicki; David Feeny; Peter Fayers; Karen L Spritzer; David Cella Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.981
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: Brian J Douthit; Rachel L Walden; Kenrick Cato; Cynthia P Coviak; Christopher Cruz; Fabio D'Agostino; Thompson Forbes; Grace Gao; Theresa A Kapetanovic; Mikyoung A Lee; Lisiane Pruinelli; Mary A Schultz; Ann Wieben; Alvin D Jeffery Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Tianxin Pan; Brendan Mulhern; Rosalie Viney; Richard Norman; An Tran-Duy; Janel Hanmer; Nancy Devlin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jing Zhang; Barry Dewitt; Evan Tang; Daniel Breitner; Mohammed Saqib; Dan Li; Rabail Siddiqui; Nathaniel Edwards; John Devin Peipert; Ron D Hays; Janel Hanmer; Istvan Mucsi Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 10.614