Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 3/2021

08-11-2020

Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system by its association with social determinants of health

Auteur: Janel Hanmer

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2021

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) is a generic, societal, preference-based summary score that uses seven domains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). This report evaluates construct validity of PROPr by its association with social determinants of health (SDoH).

Methods

An online panel survey of the US adult population included PROPr, SDoH, demographics, chronic conditions, and four other scores: the EuroQol-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L), Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark 2 and Mark 3, and the Short Form-6D (SF-6D). Each score was regressed on age, gender, health conditions, and a single SDoH. The SDoH coefficient represents the strength of its association to PROPr and was used to assess known-groups validity. Convergent validity was evaluated using Pearson correlations between different summary scores and Spearman correlations between SDoH coefficients from different summary scores.

Results

From 4142 participants, all summary scores had statistically significant differences for variables related to education, income, food and financial insecurity, and social interactions. Of the 42 SDoH variables tested, the number of statistically significant variables was 27 for EQ-5D-5L, 17 for HUI Mark 2, 23 for HUI Mark 3, 27 for PROPr, and 27 for SF-6D. The average SDoH coefficients were − 0.086 for EQ-5D-5L, − 0.039 for HUI Mark 2, − 0.063 for HUI Mark 3, − 0.064 for PROPr, and − 0.037 for SF-6D. Despite the difference in magnitude across the measures, Pearson correlations were 0.60 to 0.76 and Spearman correlations were 0.74 to 0.87.

Conclusions

These results provide evidence of construct validity supporting the use of PROPr monitor population health in the general US population.

Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:

BSL Podotherapeut Totaal

Binnen de bundel kunt u gebruik maken van boeken, tijdschriften, e-learnings, web-tv's en uitlegvideo's. BSL Podotherapeut Totaal is overal toegankelijk; via uw PC, tablet of smartphone.

Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
2.
go back to reference Kindig, D. A. (2000). Purchasing population health: Paying for results. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Kindig, D. A. (2000). Purchasing population health: Paying for results. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
go back to reference McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRef McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Committee on Educating Health Professionals to Address the Social Determinants of Health; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . A framework for educating health professionals to address the social determinants of health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Oct 14. 3, Frameworks for addressing the social determinants of health. Available from: https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​books/​NBK395979/​ Committee on Educating Health Professionals to Address the Social Determinants of Health; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . A framework for educating health professionals to address the social determinants of health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Oct 14. 3, Frameworks for addressing the social determinants of health. Available from: https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​books/​NBK395979/​
17.
go back to reference World Health Organization. (2010). A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health: debates, policy & practice, case studies. In A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health: debates, policy & practice, case studies. Geneva. World Health Organization. (2010). A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health: debates, policy & practice, case studies. In A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health: debates, policy & practice, case studies. Geneva.
18.
go back to reference Brooks, R. G., Rabin, R., & Charro, F. D. (2010). The measurement and valuation of health status using Eq-5D: a European perspective: Evidence from the EuroQol Biomed Research Programme. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Brooks, R. G., Rabin, R., & Charro, F. D. (2010). The measurement and valuation of health status using Eq-5D: a European perspective: Evidence from the EuroQol Biomed Research Programme. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
19.
go back to reference Pickard, A., Law, E., Jiang, R., Oppe, M., Shaw, J., Xie, F., … Balch, A. (2019). United States valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: an initial model using a standardized protocol. Value in Health, 22(8), 931–941. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.009 Pickard, A., Law, E., Jiang, R., Oppe, M., Shaw, J., Xie, F., … Balch, A. (2019). United States valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: an initial model using a standardized protocol. Value in Health, 22(8), 931–941. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.009
20.
go back to reference Feeny, D., Torrance, G. W., & Furlong, W. (1996). Health Utilities Index. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 239–252). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Press. Feeny, D., Torrance, G. W., & Furlong, W. (1996). Health Utilities Index. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 239–252). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Press.
21.
go back to reference Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G.W., Goldsmith, C.H., Zhu, Z., Depauw, S., … Boyle, M. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128. doi:10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006 Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G.W., Goldsmith, C.H., Zhu, Z., Depauw, S., … Boyle, M. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Medical Care, 40(2), 113–128. doi:10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006
26.
go back to reference Dewitt, B., Feeny, D., Fischhoff, B., Cella, D., Hays, R.D., Hess, R., … Hanmer, J. (2018). Estimation of a preference-based summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: The PROMIS®-Preference (PROPr) scoring system. Medical Decision Making, 38(6), 683–698. doi:10.1177/0272989x18776637 Dewitt, B., Feeny, D., Fischhoff, B., Cella, D., Hays, R.D., Hess, R., … Hanmer, J. (2018). Estimation of a preference-based summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: The PROMIS®-Preference (PROPr) scoring system. Medical Decision Making, 38(6), 683–698. doi:10.1177/0272989x18776637
30.
go back to reference Hanmer, J., Cella, D., Feeny, D., Fischhoff, B., Hays, R.D., Hess, R., … Yu, L. (2017). Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system. Quality of Life Research, 26(12), 3377–3385. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1686-2 Hanmer, J., Cella, D., Feeny, D., Fischhoff, B., Hays, R.D., Hess, R., … Yu, L. (2017). Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system. Quality of Life Research, 26(12), 3377–3385. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1686-2
31.
go back to reference Hanmer, J., Cella, D., Feeny, D., Fischhoff, B., Hays, R. D., Hess, R., … Yu, L. (2018). Evaluation of options for presenting health-states from PROMIS® item banks for valuation exercises. Quality of Life Research, 27(7), 1835–1843. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1852-1 Hanmer, J., Cella, D., Feeny, D., Fischhoff, B., Hays, R. D., Hess, R., … Yu, L. (2018). Evaluation of options for presenting health-states from PROMIS® item banks for valuation exercises. Quality of Life Research, 27(7), 1835–1843. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1852-1
39.
go back to reference Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
42.
go back to reference Neumann, P.J., Sanders, G.D., Russell, L.B., Siegel, J.E. and Ganiats, T.G. eds. (2016). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190492939.003 Neumann, P.J., Sanders, G.D., Russell, L.B., Siegel, J.E. and Ganiats, T.G. eds. (2016). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190492939.003
Metagegevens
Titel
Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system by its association with social determinants of health
Auteur
Janel Hanmer
Publicatiedatum
08-11-2020
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02691-3