Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 12/2017

19-08-2017

Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system

Auteurs: Janel Hanmer, David Cella, David Feeny, Baruch Fischhoff, Ron D. Hays, Rachel Hess, Paul A. Pilkonis, Dennis Revicki, Mark Roberts, Joel Tsevat, Lan Yu

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 12/2017

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
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

We sought to select a parsimonious subset of domains from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) that could be used for preference-based valuation. Domain selection criteria included face validity, comprehensiveness, and structural independence.

Methods

First, 9 health outcomes measurement experts selected domains appropriate for a general health measure using a modified Delphi procedure. Second, 50 adult community members assessed structural independence of domain pairs. For each pair, the participant was asked if it were possible to have simultaneously good functioning in domain 1 but poor functioning in domain 2, and vice versa. The community members also rated the relative importance of the domains. Finally, the experts selected domains, guided by community members’ judgments of structural independence and importance.

Results

After 3 rounds of surveys, the experts agreed on 10 potential domains. The percent of pairs deemed structurally independent by community members ranged from 50 to 95 (mean = 78). Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression were retained because of their inclusion in existing preference-based measures and their importance to community members. Four other domains were added because they were important to community members and judged to be independent by at least 67% of respondents: Cognitive Function—Abilities; Fatigue; Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities; and Sleep Disturbance.

Conclusion

With input from measurement experts and community members, we selected 7 PROMIS domains that can be used to create a preference-based score.
vorige artikel Sample size determination for EQ-5D-5L value set studies
volgende artikel Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
McHorney, C. A. (1999). Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 309–335.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Fryback, D., Dunham, N. C., Palta, M., Hanmer, J., Buechner, J., Cherepanov, D., et al. (2007). US norms for six generic health-related quality of life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Medical Care, 45, 1162–1170.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5), S3–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Cella, D., Riley, W., Reeve, B., Stone, A., Young, S., Rothrock, N., et al. (2010). Initial item banks and first wave testing of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) network: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
Torrance, G. (1986). Measurement of health-state utilities for economic appraisal: A review. Journal of Health Economics, 5, 1–30.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., & Russell, L. B. (Eds.). (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
Neumann, Peter J., Sanders, Gillian D., Russell, Louise B., Siegel, Joanna E., & Ganiats, Theodore G. (Eds.). (2016). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Weinstein, M. C., & Stason, W. B. (1977). Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practice. New England Journal of Medicine, 296, 716–721.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Brazier, J., Ratcliff, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
Mitchell, A. S., & Viney, R. (2010). Meeting the information needs of a national drug payer: Aspirations of the guidelines from Australia. Drug Development Research, 71(8), 463–469.CrossRef
12.
Mittmann, N., Evans, W. K., Rocchi, A., Longo, C. J., Au, H.-J., Husereau, D., et al. (2009). Addendum to CADTH’s guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Specific guidance for oncology products. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies. in Health
13.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE.
14.
Johnson, F. R., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Mühlbacher, A., Regier, D. A., et al. (2013). Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health, 16(1), 3–13.CrossRef
15.
Riley, W. T., Rothrock, N., Bruce, B., Christodolou, C., Cook, K., Hahn, E. A., et al. (2010). Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: Further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks. Quality of Life Research, 19(9), 1311–1321.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Hanmer, Janel, Feeny, David, Fischhoff, Baruch, Hays, Ron D., Hess, Rachel, Pilkonis, Paul A., et al. (2015). The PROMIS of QALYs. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13(1), 1.CrossRef
17.
Brooks, R., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef
18.
Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and singleattribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Feeny, D., Torrance, G., & Furlong, W. (1996). Health Utilities Index. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Press.
20.
Kaplan, R. M., Sieber, W. J., & Ganiats, T. G. (1997). The quality of well-being scale: Comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychology and Health, 12(6), 783–791.CrossRef
21.
Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42, 851–859.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Collins, F. S., & Riley, W. T. (2016). NIH’s transformative opportunities for the behavioral and social sciences. Science Translational Medicine, 23(8), 366.
24.
Alonso, J., Bartlett, S. J., Rose, R., Aaronson, N. K., Chaplin, J. E., Efficace, F., et al. (2013). The case for an international patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS(R)) initiative. Health Quality Life Outcomes, 11, 210.CrossRef
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 V2.0-profile measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Pharmacoeconomics (ePub).
26.
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(6), 783–791.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Craig, B. M., Reeve, B. B., Brown, P. M., Cella, D., Lipscomb, J., Pickard, S., et al. (2014). US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value in Health, 17(8), 846–853.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metagegevens
Titel
Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system
Auteurs
Janel Hanmer
David Cella
David Feeny
Baruch Fischhoff
Ron D. Hays
Rachel Hess
Paul A. Pilkonis
Dennis Revicki
Mark Roberts
Joel Tsevat
Lan Yu
Publicatiedatum
19-08-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1686-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 12/2017

Quality of Life Research 12/2017 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Maternal mental quality of life mediates the associations between intimate partner abuse against mothers and their children’s behaviours and quality of life in low-income Chinese families

OriginalPaper

Do male esophageal cancer patients have impaired sexual function after esophagectomy? A self-reported outcomes study

OriginalPaper

Standardization of health outcomes assessment for depression and anxiety: recommendations from the ICHOM Depression and Anxiety Working Group

OriginalPaper

Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population

OriginalPaper

The role of dual diagnosis in health-related quality of life among treatment-seeking patients in Spain

OriginalPaper

Social inequalities in children’s oral health-related quality of life: the Generation R Study