Brittany Lapin1,2, Irene L Katzan3. 1. Center for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, JJ3-603, USA. LapinB@ccf.org. 2. Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. LapinB@ccf.org. 3. Center for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, JJ3-603, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including global health and construct-specific measures, are collected across healthcare systems. Efforts should be made to reduce data collection burden and individualize survey administration to patient needs. Our study evaluated the ability of utilizing items on a global health measure to identify patients who may require additional screening. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted of patients who completed PROMIS Global Health (GH) as part of routine care, as well as additional construct-specific surveys, in a large healthcare system from 1/1/2016 to 12/31/2018. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis identified optimal thresholds for PROMIS GH items identifying clinically meaningful thresholds on construct-specific PROMs: PHQ-9 score ≥10, Neuro-QoL Cognitive Function, PROMIS Physical Function, and Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities T-score ≤40, PROMIS Anxiety, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, and Pain Interference T-score ≥60. RESULTS: There were 206,685 patients who completed PROMIS GH and additional construct-specific surveys. Scores ≤3 on PROMIS GH item 10 (emotional problems) had 90.0% sensitivity (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.821) for identifying patients with moderate-severe depressive symptoms on PHQ-9. Similarly high sensitivities and AUCs were demonstrated for PROMIS GH items assessing mental and physical health, fatigue, and pain to identify poor scores on their corresponding construct-specific PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides preliminary support for the ability of utilizing PROMIS GH items as screening tools to identify patients with poor scores on additional construct-specific PROMs. Through directing construct-specific PROMs to patients for whom they are most applicable, survey burden could be reduced for many patients, allowing a more efficient and targeted use of PROMs in healthcare decision-making.
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including global health and construct-specific measures, are collected across healthcare systems. Efforts should be made to reduce data collection burden and individualize survey administration to patient needs. Our study evaluated the ability of utilizing items on a global health measure to identify patients who may require additional screening. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted of patients who completed PROMIS Global Health (GH) as part of routine care, as well as additional construct-specific surveys, in a large healthcare system from 1/1/2016 to 12/31/2018. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis identified optimal thresholds for PROMIS GH items identifying clinically meaningful thresholds on construct-specific PROMs: PHQ-9 score ≥10, Neuro-QoL Cognitive Function, PROMIS Physical Function, and Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities T-score ≤40, PROMIS Anxiety, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, and Pain Interference T-score ≥60. RESULTS: There were 206,685 patients who completed PROMIS GH and additional construct-specific surveys. Scores ≤3 on PROMIS GH item 10 (emotional problems) had 90.0% sensitivity (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.821) for identifying patients with moderate-severe depressive symptoms on PHQ-9. Similarly high sensitivities and AUCs were demonstrated for PROMIS GH items assessing mental and physical health, fatigue, and pain to identify poor scores on their corresponding construct-specific PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides preliminary support for the ability of utilizing PROMIS GH items as screening tools to identify patients with poor scores on additional construct-specific PROMs. Through directing construct-specific PROMs to patients for whom they are most applicable, survey burden could be reduced for many patients, allowing a more efficient and targeted use of PROMs in healthcare decision-making.
Authors: Ethan Basch; Allison M Deal; Amylou C Dueck; Howard I Scher; Mark G Kris; Clifford Hudis; Deborah Schrag Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Melanie Calvert; Jane Blazeby; Douglas G Altman; Dennis A Revicki; David Moher; Michael D Brundage Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John S Rumsfeld; Karen P Alexander; David C Goff; Michelle M Graham; P Michael Ho; Frederick A Masoudi; Debra K Moser; Véronique L Roger; Mark S Slaughter; Kim G Smolderen; John A Spertus; Mark D Sullivan; Diane Treat-Jacobson; Julie J Zerwic Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Karen J Blumenthal; Yuchiao Chang; Timothy G Ferris; Jenna C Spirt; Christine Vogeli; Neil Wagle; Joshua P Metlay Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lindsey M Philpot; Sunni A Barnes; Rachel M Brown; Jessica A Austin; Cameron S James; Richard H Stanford; Jon O Ebbert Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 1.852
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