Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-08-2007 | Original Paper

Enhancing measurement in health outcomes research supported by Agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services

Auteurs: Bryce B. Reeve, Laurie B. Burke, Yen-pin Chiang, Steven B. Clauser, Lisa J. Colpe, Jeffrey W. Elias, John Fleishman, Ann A. Hohmann, Wendy L. Johnson-Taylor, William Lawrence, Claudia S. Moy, Louis A. Quatrano, William T. Riley, Barbara A. Smothers, Ellen M. Werner

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | bijlage 1/2007

Abstract

Many of the Institutes, Agencies and Centers that make up the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have recognized the need for better instrumentation in health outcomes research, and provide support, both internally and externally, for research utilizing advances in measurement theory and computer technology (informatics). In this paper, representatives from several DHHS agencies and institutes will discuss their need for better instruments within their discipline and describe current or future initiatives for exploring the benefits of these technologies. Together, the perspectives underscore the importance of developing valid, precise, and efficient measures to capture the full burden of disease and treatment on patients. Initiatives, like the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to create health-related quality of life item banks, represent a trans-DHHS effort to develop a standard set of measures for informing decision making in clinical research, practice, and health policy.

vorige artikel Practical and philosophical issues surrounding a national item bank: if we build it will they come?

volgende artikel Applying item response theory and computer adaptive testing: the challenges for health outcomes assessment

NIH Roadmap: Accelerating Medical Discovery to Improve Health [web site]. Retrieved November 27, 2006 from: http://www.nihroadmap.nih.gov..

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [web site]. Retrieved November 22, 2006 from: http://www.nihpromis.org

Lipscomb, J., Donaldson, M. S., & Hiatt, R. A. (2004). Cancer outcomes research and the arenas of application. JNCI Monographs, 33, 1–7.CrossRef

American Cancer Society. (2007). Cancer Facts & Figures 2007. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society.

National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Panel (2004). National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Symptom management in cancer: pain, depression, and fatigue, July 15–17, 2002. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs 32, 9–16.

Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. F. (Eds.) (2005). Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods, and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gotay, C. C., Lipscomb, J., & Snyder, C. F. (2005). Reflections on COMWG findings and moving to the next phase. In J. Lipscomb, C. C. Gotay, & C. F. Snyder (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods, and applications (pp. 568–583). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

National Cancer Institute. The NCI Strategic Plan for Leading the Nation to Eliminate the Suffering and Death Due to Cancer. NIH Publication No. 06–5773, January 2006, Bethesda, MD, Retrieved January 30, 2007 from: http://www.strategicplan.nci.nih.gov/

National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society co-sponsored conference: Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials: Evaluating and Enhancing the Payoff to Decision Making [web site]. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from: http://www.outcomes.cancer.gov/publications/workshops/proact/

10.

Outcomes Research Branch, National Cancer Institute [website]. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from: http://www.outcomes.cancer.gov

11.

Ogden, C., Carol, M., & McDowell, M., et al. (2006). Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States 1999–2004. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1540–1555.CrossRef

12.

Bonow, R. O. (2003). The challenge of balancing scientific discovery and translation. Circulation, 107(3), 358–362.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Hill, J. O., & Peters, J. C. (1998). Environmental contributions to the obesity epidemic. Science, 280, 1371–1374.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Evans, W. D., Finkelstein, E. A., Kamerow, D. B., & Renaud, J. M. (2005). Public perceptions of childhood obesity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(1), 26–32.PubMedCrossRef

15.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. [Rockville, MD]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General. Available from: U.S. GPO, Washington.

16.

Wee, C., Phillips, R., & Legedza, A., et al. (2005). Health care expenditures association with overweight and obesity among US adults: Importance of age and race. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 159–165.PubMedCrossRef

17.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, To Improve the Health and Wellness of Persons with Disabilities [website]. Washington, DC, Office on Disability. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from: http://www.hhs.gov/od

18.

Fuhrer, M. J. (Ed.) (1997). Assessing Medical Rehabilitation Practices The Promise of Outcomes Research. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

19.

Research Plan for the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (1993). Bethesda, MD: NIH Publication No. 93–3509.

20.

World Health Organization. (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. Geneva.

21.

Brandt, E. N. Jr., & Pope, A. M. (Eds.) (1997). Enabling America: Assessing the role of rehabilitation science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

22.

Peterson, C. M., & Harvath, L. (2004). Current and future commitment to hematology research. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America, 18, 1215–1234.PubMedCrossRef

23.

National Health Interview Survey. (2003). Summary Statistics for U.S. Adults, Appendix III, Table I.

24.

National Health Interview Survey (2003). Summary Statistics for U.S. Adults, Appendix III, Table IV.

25.

National Health Interview Survey (2004). Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children, Appendix III, Table IV.

26.

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (2002). Sickle cell research for treatment and cure. Bethesda, MD: NIH Publication No. 02–5214.)

27.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. DHHS [website]. Retrieved November 27, 2006 from: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hbd/hemophilia.htm/

28.

Smith, H. C., Frye, R. L., & Piehler, J. M. (1983). Does coronary bypass surgery have a favorable influence on the qualify of life?. Cardiovascular Clinics, 13, 253–264.PubMed

29.

Heaton, R. K., Grant, I., McSweeny, A. J., Adams, K. M. & Petty, T. L. (1983). Psychological effects of continuous and nocturnal oxygen therapy in hypoxemic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 143(1), 1941–1947.PubMedCrossRef

30.

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. [website]. Workshop on Adults with Sickle Cell Diseases: Meeting Unmet Needs. Executive Summary and Recommendations. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/scdmtg/execsum.htm/

31.

Hispanic Community Health Study [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.cscc.unc.edu/hchs

32.

The Health Measurement Research Group [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.healthmeasurement.org

33.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1–31.CrossRef

34.

Mroczek, D. K., & Spiro, A. (2003). Modeling intraindividual change in personality traits: findings from the normative aging study. Journal of Gerontology B Psychological Science and Social Science, 58(3), 153–165.

35.

Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., & Love, G. (2004). Positive health: connecting well-being with biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 359, 1383–1394.CrossRef

36.

Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science, 306, 1776–1780.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.rcmar.ucla.edu/

38.

Murray, C. J. L., & Lopez, A. D. (Eds.). (1996). The global burden of disease and injury series: A comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020 (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard School of Public Health on behalf of the World Health Organization and the World Bank, Harvard University Press.)

39.

Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Gibbon, M. & First, M. B. (1992). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID): I. history, rationale, and description. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49, 624–629.PubMed

40.

Aggen, S. H., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2005). DSM criteria for major depression: Evaluating symptom patterns using latent-trait item response models. Psychological Medicine, 35, 475–487.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Kraemer, H. C., Noda, A., & O’Hara, R. (2004). Categorical versus dimensional approaches to diagnosis: Methodological challenges. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 38, 17–25.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Kupfer, D. J. (2005). Dimensional models for research and diagnosis: A current dilemma. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 557–559.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Evans, D. L., Charney, D. S., & Lewis, L. et al. (2005). Mood disorders in the medically ill: Scientific review and recommendations. Biological Psychiatry, 58, 175–189.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Green, M. F., Nuechterlein, K. H., & Gold, J. M., et al. (2004). Approaching a consensus cognitive battery for clinical trials in schizophrenia: The NIMH-MATRICS Conference to select cognitive domains and test criteria. Biological Psychiatry, 56, 301–307.PubMedCrossRef

45.

National Institute of Mental Health. [website]. Program Announcement: Functional Assessment of People with Mental Disorders. Retrieved November 27, 2006 from: http://www.grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-05-037.html/

46.

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. [website]. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/

47.

National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement on Improving End-of-Life Care [website]. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from: http://www.consensus.nih.gov/2004/2004EndOfLifeCareSOS024html.htm/

48.

Hays, R. D., Shaul, J. A., Williams, V.S., et al. (1999). Psychometric properties of the CAHPS 1.0 survey measures. Medical Care, 37(supplement), 22–31.

49.

Marshall, G. N., Morales, L. S., & Elliott, M., et al. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 1.0 core survey. Psychological Assessment, 13, 216–229.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Hargreaves, J. L., Hays, R. D., & Cleary, P. D. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey. Health Services Research, 38, 1509–1527.CrossRef

51.

Bender, R. H., & Garfinkel, S. A. (2001). Differences in the structure of CAHPS measures among the Medicare fee-for-service, Medicare managed care, and privately insured populations. Health Services Research, 36, 489–508.PubMed

52.

Hays, R. D., Brown, J., Brown, L. U., Spritzer, K. L., & Crall, J. J. (2006). Classical test theory and item response theory analyses of multi-item scales assessing parents’ perceptions of their children’s dental care. Medical Care, 44(11 suppl. 3), S60–S68.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Moher, D., Schachter, H. M., Mamaladze, V., et al. (2004). Quality of breast cancer care in women. Summary, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 105. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publication No. 04-E030–1.

54.

Fleishman, J. A., & Lawrence, W. F. (2003). Demographic variation in SF-12 scores: True differences or differential item functioning. Medical Care, 41, III-75–III-86.

55.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/

56.

Food and Drug Administration, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. Retrieved March 11, 2004, from: http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.html/

57.

Food and Drug Administration. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.pdf/

58.

Bren, L. (2006). The importance of patient-reported outcomes... It’s all about the patients. FDA Consumer, 40, 27–32.

59.

Dueck, A., Halyard, M. Y., Frost, M. H., & Sloan, J. A. (2006). Meeting on the FDA Draft Guidance on Patient-Reported Outcomes. Patient Reported Outcomes Newsletter, 36, 1–4.

60.

Revicki, D. A. (2007). FDA draft guidance and health-outcomes research. Lancet, 369, 540–542.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Enhancing measurement in health outcomes research supported by Agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services
Auteurs: Bryce B. Reeve
Laurie B. Burke
Yen-pin Chiang
Steven B. Clauser
Lisa J. Colpe
Jeffrey W. Elias
John Fleishman
Ann A. Hohmann
Wendy L. Johnson-Taylor
William Lawrence
Claudia S. Moy
Louis A. Quatrano
William T. Riley
Barbara A. Smothers
Ellen M. Werner
Publicatiedatum: 01-08-2007
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave bijlage 1/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9190-8

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen bijlage 1/2007

Developing tailored instruments: item banking and computerized adaptive assessment

The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures

Applying item response theory to enhance health outcomes assessment

A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression

Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies

Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement