Comparing patient-reported outcomes measurement information system® (PROMIS®)-16 domain scores with the PROMIS-29 and 5-item PROMIS cognitive function scores
-
Published:2024-08-14
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:0962-9343
-
Container-title:Quality of Life Research
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Qual Life Res
Author:
Zeng Chengbo, Hays Ron D., Rodriguez Anthony, Hanmer Janel, Herman Patricia M., Edelen Maria OrlandoORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
This study evaluates the interpretability of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®)-16 profile domain scores (physical function, ability to participate in social roles and activities, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, pain interference, cognitive function – abilities, and fatigue) compared to the PROMIS-29 scores and a 5-item PROMIS cognitive function score. The study aims to provide insights into using these measures in clinical and research settings.
Methods
Analyses were conducted using data from 4130 adults from a nationally representative, probability-based internet panel between September and October 2022. A subset of 1256 individuals with back pain was followed up at six months. We compared the PROMIS-16 profile with the corresponding domain scores from the PROMIS-29 and a custom five-item cognitive function measure. We evaluated (1) reliability through inter-item correlations within each domain and (2) criterion validity by comparing PROMIS-16 profile with the corresponding longer PROMIS measures: (a) standardized mean differences in domain scores, (b) correlations, and (c) concordance of change (i.e., got worse, stayed the same, got better) among those with back pain from baseline to six months later using the reliable change index. We report the Kappa coefficient of agreement and the frequency and percentage of participants with concordant classifications.
Results
Inter-item correlations for the PROMIS-16 domains ranged from 0.65 in cognitive function to 0.92 in pain interference. Standardized mean differences between PROMIS-16 and the scores for the corresponding longer PROMIS domains were minimal (< 0.2). Correlations among the corresponding domain scores ranged from 0.82 for sleep disturbance to 0.98 for pain interference. The percentage of concordance in change groups ranged from 63% for sleep disturbance to 88% for pain interference. Except for sleep disturbance, the change groups derived from the PROMIS-16 showed moderate to substantial agreement with scores estimated from the longer PROMIS measures (Kappa coefficients ≥ 0.41).
Conclusion
The PROMIS-16 domain scores perform similarly to the longer PROMIS measures and can be interpreted in the same way. This similarity indicates that PROMIS-16 can be useful for research as a brief health-related quality-of-life profile measure.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference21 articles.
1. Kingsley, C., & Patel, S. (2017). Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures. BJA Education, 17(4), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaed/mkw060 2. Basch, E., Deal, A. M., Kris, M. G., Scher, H. I., Hudis, C. A., Sabbatini, P., et al. (2016). Symptom Monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during Routine Cancer treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34(6), 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830 3. Basch, E., Schrag, D., Henson, S., Jansen, J., Ginos, B., Stover, A. M., et al. (2022). Effect of electronic symptom monitoring on patient-reported outcomes among patients with metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 327(24), 2413–2422. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.9265 4. HealthMeasures (2023). December,. PROMIS® Score Cut Points. https://www.healthmeasures.net/score-and-interpret/interpret-scores/promis/promis-score-cut-points. Accessed. 5. 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
|
|