Understanding the measurement relationship between EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29 and PROPr

PurposeMany generic patient-reported instruments are available for the measurement of health outcomes, including EQ-5D-5L, and the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Assessing their measurement characteristics informs users about the consistency between, and limits of, evidence produced. The aim was to assess the measurement relationship between the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system and value sets, the PROMIS-29 and PROPr (PROMIS value set).MethodsData were extracted from a cross-sectional survey administering measures of quality of life online in Australia. Descriptive analysis, agreement and construct validity assessment methods were used to compare instruments at the item, domain and value set level.ResultsIn total, 794 Australians completed the survey. Convergent validity analysis found that similar dimensions across instruments were highly correlated (> 0.50), but the PROMIS-29 assesses additional health concepts not explicitly covered by EQ-5D (sleep and fatigue). Known-group assessment found that EQ-5D-5L and PROPr were able to detect those with and without a condition (ES range 0.78-0.83) but PROPr could more precisely detect differing levels of self-reported health. Both instruments were sensitive to differences in levels of pain.DiscussionThere is some consistency in what the EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29 and PROPr measure. Differences between value set characteristics can be linked to differences what is measured and the valuation approaches used. This has implications for the use of each in assessing health outcomes, and the results can inform decisions about which instrument should be used in which context.