The PROPr can be measured using different PROMIS domain item sets.

Cancer Epidemiol

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, BIH Biomedical Innovation Academy, BIH Charité Digital Clinician Scientist Program, Charitépla

Published: December 2024


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Preference Score (PROPr) is estimated from descriptive health assessments within the PROMIS framework. The underlying item response theory (IRT) allows researchers to measure PROMIS health domains with any subset of items that are calibrated to this domain. Consequently, this should also be true for the PROPr. We aimed to test this assumption using both an empirical and a simulation approach.

Methods: Empirically, we estimated 3 PROMIS Pain inference (PI) scores from 3 different item subsets in a sample of n=199 cancer patients: 4 PROMIS-29 items (estimate: θ), the 2 original PROPr items (θ), and 10 different items (θ). We calculated mean differences and agreement between θ, and θ and θ, respectively, and between their resulting PROPr, PROPr, PROPr, using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman (B-A) plots with 95 %-Limits of Agreement (LoA). For the simulation, we used the IRT-model to calculate all item responses of the entire 7 PROPr domain item banks from the empirically observed PROMIS-29+cognition θ. From these simulated item banks, we chose the 2 original PROPr items per domain to calculate PROPr and compared it to PROPr again using ICC and B-A plots.

Results: θ vs θ showed smaller bias (-0.012, 95 %-LoA -0.88;0.85) than θ vs θ (0.025, 95 %-LoA -0.95;1.00. ICC>0.85 (p<0.001) in both θ-comparisons. PROPr vs PROPr showed lower bias (0.0012, 95 %-LoA -0.039;0.042) than PROPr vs PROPr (-0.0029, 95 %-LoA -0.049;0.044). ICC>0.98 (p<0.0001) on both PROPr-comparisons. Mean PROPr was larger than mean PROPr (0.0228, 95 %-LoA -0.1103; 0.1558) and ICC was 0.95 (95 %CI 0.93; 0.97).

Conclusion: Different item subsets can be used to estimate the PROMIS PI for calculation of the PROPr. Reduction to 2 items per domain rather than 4 does not significantly change the PROPr estimate on average. Agreements differ across the spectrum and in individual comparisons.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2024.102658DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

propr
11
domain item
8
original propr
8
propr items
8
propr propr
8
item banks
8
item
6
promis
5
items
5
propr measured
4

Similar Publications

ObjectivesThe EQ-5D-5L and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) preference score (PROPr) are preference-based measures. This study compares mapping and linking approaches to align the PROPr and the PROMIS domains included in PROPr plus Anxiety with EQ-5D-5L item responses and preference scores.MethodsA general population sample of 983 adults completed the online survey.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • * Data from 207 patients showed that factors like body mass index (BMI) and post-operative infections significantly impacted PROM scores and likelihood of returning to work.
  • * The findings suggest that post-operative infections lead to considerably poorer outcomes, highlighting the need for careful management to improve patient recovery after surgery.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The EORTC QLU-C10D distinguished better between cancer patients and the general population than PROPr and EQ-5D-5L in a cross-sectional study.

J Clin Epidemiol

January 2025

Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; BIH Charité Digital Clinician Scientist Program, BIH Biomedical Innovation Academy, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Char

Objectives: Health state utility (HSU) instruments for calculating quality-adjusted life years, such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Utility - Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D), derived from the EORTC QLQ-30 questionnaire, the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) preference score (PROPr), and the EuroQoL-5-Dimensions-5-Levels (EQ-5D-5L), yield different HSU values due to different modeling and different underlying descriptive scales. For example the QLU-C10D includes cancer-relevant dimensions such as nausea. This study aimed to investigate how these differences in descriptive scales contribute to differences in HSU scores by comparing scores of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy to those of the general population.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: Preference-based summary scores are used to quantify values, differences, and changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that can be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) measure is a preference-based summary score comprised of 7 PROMIS domains. The PROMIS-16 is a new PROMIS profile instrument.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objectives: We aim to compare the measurement properties of three indirect (EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D) and one direct (time trade-off, TTO) utility assessment methods in patients with chronic skin diseases.

Methods: 120 patients with physician-diagnosed chronic skin diseases (psoriasis 39%, atopic dermatitis 27%, acne 19%) completed a cross-sectional survey. Respondents completed the EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29+2 and SF-36v1 questionnaires and a 10-year TTO task for own current health.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF