nach oben

Erschienen in:

19.08.2017

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

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

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 12/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

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.

Vorheriger Artikel Sample size determination for EQ-5D-5L value set studies

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

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

McHorney, C. A. (1999). Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 309–335.CrossRefPubMed

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

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

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

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.

Torrance, G. (1986). Measurement of health-state utilities for economic appraisal: A review. Journal of Health Economics, 5, 1–30.CrossRefPubMed

Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., & Russell, L. B. (Eds.). (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.

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.

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

Titel: Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system
verfasst von: Janel Hanmer
David Cella
David Feeny
Baruch Fischhoff
Ron D. Hays
Rachel Hess
Paul A. Pilkonis
Dennis Revicki
Mark Roberts
Joel Tsevat
Lan Yu
Publikationsdatum: 19.08.2017
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1686-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2017

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

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

Measuring quality of life in opioid-dependent people: a systematic review of assessment instruments

Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients

Examining transgender health through the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health’s (ICF) Contextual Factors

Comparison of health state values derived from patients and individuals from the general population