Top

Gepubliceerd in:

12-09-2018

Adapting summary scores for the PROMIS-29 v2.0 for use among older adults with multiple chronic conditions

Auteurs: Wenjing Huang, Adam J. Rose, Elizabeth Bayliss, Lesley Baseman, Emily Butcher, Rosa-Elena Garcia, Maria Orlando Edelen

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2019

Abstract

Purpose

The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile (PROMIS-29 v2.0) is a widely used health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure. Summary scores for physical and mental HRQoL have recently been developed for the PROMIS-29 using a general population. Our purpose was to adapt these summary scores to a population of older adults with multiple chronic conditions.

Methods

We collected the PROMIS-29 v2.0 for 1359 primary care patients age 65+ with at least 2 of 13 chronic conditions. PROMIS-29 has 7 domains, plus a single-item pain intensity scale. We used exploratory factor analysis (EFA), followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), to examine the number of factors that best captured these eight scores. We used previous results from a recent study by Hays et al. (Qual Life Res 27:1885–1891, 2018) to standardize scoring coefficients, normed to the general population.

Results

The mean age was 80.7, and 67% of participants were age 80 or older. Our results indicated a 2-factor solution, with these factors representing physical and mental HRQoL, respectively. We call these factors the physical health score (PHS) and the mental health score (MHS). We normed these summary scores to the general US population. The mean MHS for our population of was 50.1, similar to the US population, while the mean PHS was 42.2, almost a full standard deviation below the US population.

Conclusions

We describe the adaptation of physical and mental health summary scores of the PROMIS-29 for use with a population of older adults with multiple chronic conditions.

vorige artikel Towards standardized patient reported physical function outcome reporting: linking ten commonly used questionnaires to a common metric

volgende artikel Validation of two PROMIS item banks for measuring social participation in the Dutch general population

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Cella, D. F. (1995). Measuring quality of life in palliative care. Seminars in Oncology, 22(2 Suppl 3), 73–81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7537908.

Schipper, H., Clinch, J. J., & Olweny, C. L. M. (1996). Quality of life studies: Definitions and conceptual issues. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 11–23). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.

Bevans, M., Ross, A., & Cella, D. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): Efficient, standardized tools to measure self-reported health and quality of life. Nursing Outlook, 62(5), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2014.05.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chen, J., Ou, L., & Hollis, S. J. (2013). A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organizations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Services Research, 13, 211. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ware, J. E. Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.CrossRefPubMed

Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hays, R. D., Alonso, J., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Possibilities for summarizing health-related quality of life when using a profile instrument. In M. Staquet, R. Hays & P. Fayers (Eds.), Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: Methods and practice (153, p. 143). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Farivar, S. S., Cunningham, W. E., & Hays, R. D. (2007). Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 health survey, V. 1. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5:54. 18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hays, R. D., Marshall, G. N., Wang, E. Y. I., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). Four-year cross-lagged associations between physical and mental health in the medical outcomes study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 441–449.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Hays, R. D., Spritzer, K. L., Schalet, B., & Cella, D. (2018). PROMIS®-29 v2.0 physical and mental health summary scores. Quality of Life Research, 27(7), 1885–1891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1842-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Rose, A. J., et al. (2018). Evaluating the PROMIS-29 v2.0 for use among older adults with multiple chronic conditions. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1958-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Tarlov, A. R., et al. (1989). The medical outcomes study: An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA, 262(7), 925–930.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Edelen, M. O., Rose, A. J., Bayliss, E., Baseman, L., Butcher, E., Garcia, R. E., Tabano, D., & Stucky, B. D. (2017). Patient-reported outcome-based performance measures for older adults with multiple chronic conditions. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2176.html.

14.

Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). item response theory for psychologists. London: Psychology Press.

15.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555.CrossRef

16.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116.CrossRef

17.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10.CrossRefPubMed

18.

SAS (9.4 ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Corporation.

19.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

20.

Hays, R. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1990). The structure of self-reported health in chronic disease patients. Psychological Assessment, 2, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.2.1.22.CrossRef

21.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRef

22.

Beaumont, J. L., Cella, D., Phan, A. T., Choi, S., Liu, Z., & Yao, J. C. (2012). Comparison of health-related quality of life in patients with neuroendocrine tumors with quality of life in the general US population. Pancreas, 41(3), 461–466. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0b013e318232804527.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Skinner, K. M., Lee, A., Ren, X. S., Clark, J. A. el al (2004). Patient-Reported Measures of Health: The Veterans Health Study. The Journal of ambulatory care management, 27(1), 70–83. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14717468.

24.

Revicki, D. A., Kawata, A. K., Harnam, N., Chen, W.-H., Hays, R. D., & Cella, D. (2009). Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Quality of Life Research, 18, 783–791.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Hays, R. D., Revicki, D. A., Feeny, D., Fayers, P., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2016). Using linear equating to map PROMIS global health items and the PROMIS-29 V. 2 Profile measure to the health utilities index—mark 3. Pharmacoeconomics, 34, 1015–1022.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Craig, B. M., Reeve, B. B., Brown, P. M., Cella, D., Hays, R. D., Lipscomb, J., Pickard, A. S., & Revicki, D. A. (2014). US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value in Health, 17(8), 846–853.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Hanmer, J., Cella, D., Feeny, D., Fischhoff, B., Hays, R. D., Hess, R., et al. (2017). Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system. Quality of Life Research, 26, 3377–3385.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Hanmer, J., Feeny, D., Fischoff, B., Hays, R. D., Hess, R., Pilkonis, P., et al. (2015). The PROMIS of QALYs. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 122.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Quan, H., Sundararajan, V., Halfon, P., Fong, A., Burnand, B., Luthi, J. C., Saunders, L. D., Beck, C. A., Feasby, T. E., & Ghali, W. A. (2005). Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Medical Care, 43(11), 1130–1139. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Adapting summary scores for the PROMIS-29 v2.0 for use among older adults with multiple chronic conditions
Auteurs: Wenjing Huang
Adam J. Rose
Elizabeth Bayliss
Lesley Baseman
Emily Butcher
Rosa-Elena Garcia
Maria Orlando Edelen
Publicatiedatum: 12-09-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1988-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2019

Changes and determinants of health-related quality of life among people newly diagnosed with HIV in China: a 1-year follow-up study

Open Access

The impact of education on knowledge, adherence and quality of life among patients on haemodialysis

The prognostic value of health-related quality of life in patients with Chagas heart disease

Mapping the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory to the Health Utility Index Mark III

Towards standardized patient reported physical function outcome reporting: linking ten commonly used questionnaires to a common metric

Open Access

A systematic review of utility values in children with cerebral palsy

Review