nach oben

PharmacoEconomics

Erschienen in:

01.10.2016 | Original Research Article

Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS^® Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3

verfasst von: Ron D. Hays, Dennis A. Revicki, David Feeny, Peter Fayers, Karen L. Spritzer, David Cella

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 10/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Preference-based health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) scores are useful as outcome measures in clinical studies, for monitoring the health of populations, and for estimating quality-adjusted life-years.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of data collected in an internet survey as part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS^®) project. To estimate Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) preference scores, we used the ten PROMIS^® global health items, the PROMIS-29 V2.0 single pain intensity item and seven multi-item scales (physical functioning, fatigue, pain interference, depressive symptoms, anxiety, ability to participate in social roles and activities, sleep disturbance), and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 items. Linear regression analyses were used to identify significant predictors, followed by simple linear equating to avoid regression to the mean.

Results

The regression models explained 48 % (global health items), 61 % (PROMIS-29 V2.0 scales), and 64 % (PROMIS-29 V2.0 items) of the variance in the HUI-3 preference score. Linear equated scores were similar to observed scores, although differences tended to be larger for older study participants.

Conclusions

HUI-3 preference scores can be estimated from the PROMIS^® global health items or PROMIS-29 V2.0. The estimated HUI-3 scores from the PROMIS^® health measures can be used for economic applications and as a measure of overall HR-QOL in research.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Hays RD, Alonso J, Coons SJ. Possibilities for summarizing health-related quality of life when using a profile instrument. In: Staquet M, Hays RD, Fayers P, editors. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998. p. 143–53.

Kaplan RM. Measuring quality of life for policy analysis: past, present and future. In: Lenderking WR, Revicki DA, editors. Advancing health outcome research methods and clinical applications. McLean: International Society for Quality of Life Research; 2005. p. 1–35.

Kaplan RM, Feeny D, Revicki DA. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference-based outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:467–75.CrossRefPubMed

Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:477–87.CrossRefPubMed

Hays RD, Eastwood J, Kotlerman J, et al. Health-related quality of life and patient reports about care outcomes in a multidisciplinary hospital intervention. Ann Behav Med. 2006;31:173–8.CrossRefPubMed

Hays RD, Reeve BB, Smith AW, et al. Associations of cancer and other chronic medical conditions with SF-6D preference-based scores in Medicare beneficiaries. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:385–91.CrossRefPubMed

Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490–502.CrossRefPubMed

Brooks R. The EuroQol group after 25 years. New York: Springer; 2013.CrossRef

Hector RD, Anderson JP, Paul RC, et al. Health state preferences are equivalent in the United States and Trinidad and Tobago. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:729–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Med Care. 2002;40:113–28.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta M, et al. U.S. norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Med Care. 2007;45:1162–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Fryback DG, Palta M, Cherepanov D, et al. Comparison of five health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory. Med Dec Making. 2010;30:5–15.CrossRef

14.

Revicki DA, Kawata AK, Harnam N, et al. 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. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:783–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluations in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587–611.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Petrou S, Rivero-Aria O, Dakin H, et al. Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: the MAPS statement. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:985–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Hays RD, Bjorner J, Revicki DA, et al. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:873–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Hays RD, Spritzer KL, Thompson WW, et al. U.S. general population estimate for “excellent” to “poor” self-rated health item. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30:1511–6.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Fayers PM, Hays RD. Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile to preference-based measures? Value Health. 2014;17:261–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. Initial item banks and first wave testing of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) network: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1179–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Liu H, Cella D, Gershon R, et al. Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system internet panel. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1169–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Sanmartin C, Berthelot JM, Ng E, et al. Comparing health and health care in Canada and the United States. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:1133–42.CrossRef

23.

Feeny D, Kaplan MS, Huguet N, et al. Comparing population health in the United States and Canada. Popul Health Metr. 2010;8:8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Feeny D, Spritzer KL, Hays RD, et al. Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: Cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Med Decis Making. 2011;32:273–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.

26.

Hays RD, Liu H, Kapteyn A. Use of internet panels to conduct surveys. Behav Res Methods. 2015;47:685–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Hanmer J, Hays RD, Fryback DG. Mode of administration is important in U.S. national estimates of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2007;45:1171–9.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Bjorner JB, Rose M, Gandek B, et al. Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:108–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Raat H, Bonsel GJ, Hoogeveen WC, et al. Feasibility and reliability of a mailed questionnaire to obtain visual analogue scale valuations for health states defined by the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Med Care. 2004;42(1):13–8.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Le Galès C, Buron C, Costet N, et al. Development of a preference-weighted health status classification system in France: the Health Utilities Index 3. Health Care Manag Sci. 2002;5(1):41–51.CrossRef

31.

Ruiz M, Rejas J, Soto J, et al. Adaptation and validation of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 into Spanish and correction norms for Spanish population. Med Clin. 2003;120:89–96.CrossRef

32.

Craig BM, Reeve BB, Brown PM, et al. US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value Health. 2014;17:846–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Hanmer J, Feeny D, Fischoff B, et al. The PROMIS of QALYs. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;3:122.CrossRef

Titel: Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS® Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3
verfasst von: Ron D. Hays
Dennis A. Revicki
David Feeny
Peter Fayers
Karen L. Spritzer
David Cella
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2016
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 10/2016
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0408-x

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS^® Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2016

Sustainable Financing of Innovative Therapies: A Review of Approaches

EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes

The Effects of Diagnostic Definitions in Claims Data on Healthcare Cost Estimates: Evidence from a Large-Scale Panel Data Analysis of Diabetes Care in Japan

Publication of Cost-of-Illness Studies: Does Methodological Complexity Matter?

Daclatasvir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Critique of the Clinical and Economic Evidence

BEACON: A Summary Framework to Overcome Potential Reimbursement Hurdles