Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHanmer, Janel
dc.contributor.authorDewitt, Barry
dc.contributor.authorYu, Lan
dc.contributor.authorTsevat, Joel
dc.contributor.authorRoberts, Mark
dc.contributor.authorRevicki, Dennis
dc.contributor.authorPilkonis, Paul A.
dc.contributor.authorHess, Rachel
dc.contributor.authorHays, Ron D.
dc.contributor.authorFischhoff, Baruch
dc.contributor.authorFeeny, David
dc.contributor.authorCondon, David
dc.contributor.authorCella, David
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-07T20:36:42Z
dc.date.available2022-07-07T20:36:42Z
dc.date.issued2018-07-31
dc.description13 pagesen_US
dc.description.abstractObjectives The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score is a recently developed summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). PROPr is a preference-based scoring system for seven PROMIS domains created using multiplicative multi-attribute utility theory. It serves as a generic, societal, preference-based summary scoring system of health-related quality of life. This manuscript evaluates construct validity of PROPr in two large samples from the US general population. Methods We utilized 2 online panel surveys, the PROPr Estimation Survey and the Profiles-Health Utilities Index (HUI) Survey. Both included the PROPr measure, patient demographic information, self-reported chronic conditions, and other preference-based summary scores: the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and HUI in the PROPr Estimation Survey and the HUI in the Profiles-HUI Survey. The HUI was scored as both the Mark 2 and the Mark 3. Known-groups validity was evaluated using age- and gender-stratified mean scores and health condition impact estimates. Condition impact estimates were created using ordinary least squares regression in which a summary score was regressed on age, gender, and a single health condition. The coefficient for the health condition is the estimated effect on the preference score of having a condition vs. not having it. Convergent validity was evaluated using Pearson correlations between PROPr and other summary scores. Results The sample consisted of 983 respondents from the PROPr Estimation Survey and 3,000 from the Profiles-HUI survey. Age- and gender-stratified mean PROPr scores were lower than EQ-5D and HUI scores, with fewer subjects having scores corresponding to perfect health on the PROPr. In the PROPr Estimation survey, all 11 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using PROPr, 8 were statistically significant by the EQ-5D, 7 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 2, and 9 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 3. In the Profiles-HUI survey, all 21 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using summary scores from all three scoring systems. In these samples, the correlations between PROPr and the other summary measures ranged from 0.67 to 0.70. Conclusions These results provide evidence of construct validity for PROPr using samples from the US general population.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipJanel Hanmer was supported by the National Institutes of Health through Grant Number KL2 TR001856. Data collection was supported by the National Institutes of Health through Grant Number UL1TR000005. Barry Dewitt was partially supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship.en_US
dc.identifier.citationHanmer J, Dewitt B, Yu L, Tsevat J, Roberts M, Revicki D, et al. (2018) Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system. PLoS ONE 13(7): e0201093. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201093en_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201093en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1794/27241
dc.identifier.urihttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201093en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0-USen_US
dc.titleCross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring systemen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Cross-sectional_validation.pdf
Size:
2.41 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article - Published
Download
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Cross-sectional_validation.pdf
Size:
2.41 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article - Published
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.22 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Condon, David