PROMIS 4-item measures and numeric rating scales efficiently assess SPADE symptoms compared with legacy measures

被引:30
作者
Kroenke, Kurt [1 ,2 ]
Stump, Timothy E. [3 ,4 ]
Kean, Jacob [5 ]
Talib, Tasneem L. [2 ]
Haggstrom, David A. [1 ,2 ,6 ]
Monahan, Patrick O. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Div Gen Internal Med & Geriatr, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[2] Regenstrief Inst Inc, 1101 West 10th St, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[3] Indiana Univ, Dept Biostat, Fairbanks Sch Publ Hlth, Indianapolis, IN 46204 USA
[4] Sch Med, Indianapolis, IN USA
[5] Univ Utah, Sch Med, Dept Populat Hlth Sci, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[6] Roudebush VA Med Ctr, VA Ctr Hlth Informat & Commun, Indianapolis, IN USA
关键词
Psychometrics; Pain; Depression; Anxiety; Sleep; Fatigue; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES; MINIMALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES; PRIMARY-CARE PATIENTS; PAIN INTERFERENCE; SHORT-FORMS; COMPARATIVE RESPONSIVENESS; CLINICAL-PRACTICE; COMMON SYMPTOMS; HEALTH; DEPRESSION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.018
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: The 5 SPADE (sleep, pain, anxiety, depression, and low energy/fatigue) symptoms are among the most prevalent and disabling symptoms in clinical practice. This study evaluates the minimally important difference (MID) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures and their correspondence with other brief measures to assess SPADE symptoms. Study Design and Setting: Three hundred primary care patients completed a 4-item PROMIS scale, a numeric rating scale (NRS), and a non-PROMIS legacy scale for each of the 5 SPADE symptoms. Optimal NRS cutpoints were examined, and cross-walk units for converting legacy measure scores to PROMIS scores were determined. PROMIS scores corresponding to standard deviation (SD) and standard error of measurement (SEM) changes in legacy scores were used to estimate MID. Results: At an NRS >= 5, the mean PROMIS T-score exceeded 55 (the operational threshold for a clinically meaningful symptom) for each SPADE symptom. Correlations were high (0.70-0.86) between each PROMIS scale and its corresponding non-PROMIS legacy scale. Changes in non-PROMIS legacy scale scores of 0.35 SD and 1 SEM corresponded to mean PROMIS T-scores of 2.92 and 3.05 across the 5 SPADE symptoms, with changes in 0.2 and 0.5 SD corresponding to mean PROMIS T-scores of 1.67 and 4.16. Conclusion: A 2-step screening process for SPADE symptoms might use single-item NRS scores, proceeding to PROMIS scales for NRS scores >= 5. A PROMIS T-score change of three points represents a reasonable MID estimate, with two to four points approximating lower and upper bounds. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:116 / 124
页数:9
相关论文
共 62 条
  • [1] Minimally important differences for Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference for individuals with back pain
    Amtmann, Dagmar
    Kim, Jiseon
    Chung, Hyewon
    Askew, Robert L.
    Park, Ryoungsun
    Cook, Karon F.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN RESEARCH, 2016, 9 : 251 - 255
  • [2] Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference
    Amtmann, Dagmar
    Cook, Karon F.
    Jensen, Mark P.
    Chen, Wen-Hung
    Choi, Seung
    Revicki, Dennis
    Cella, David
    Rothrock, Nan
    Keefe, Francis
    Callahan, Leigh
    Lai, Jin-Shei
    [J]. PAIN, 2010, 150 (01) : 173 - 182
  • [3] Effect of the addition of a "help" question to two screening questions on specificity for diagnosis of depression in general practice: diagnostic validity study
    Arroll, B
    Goodyear-Smith, F
    Kerse, N
    Fishman, T
    Gunn, J
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 331 (7521): : 884 - 886A
  • [4] Patient-Reported Outcomes - Harnessing Patients' Voices to Improve Clinical Care
    Basch, Ethan
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2017, 376 (02) : 105 - 108
  • [5] MINIMALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES FOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROMIS) FATIGUE AND PAIN INTERFERENCE SCORES
    Beaumont, J. L.
    Fries, J. F.
    Curtis, J. R.
    Cella, D.
    Yun, H.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2015, 18 (03) : A165 - A166
  • [6] Using patient-reported outcomes and PROMIS in research and clinical applications: experiences from the PCORI pilot projects
    Bingham, Clifton O., III
    Bartlett, Susan J.
    Merkel, Peter A.
    Mielenz, Thelma J.
    Pilkonis, Paul A.
    Edmundson, Lauren
    Moore, Emily
    Sabharwal, Rajeev K.
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2016, 25 (08) : 2109 - 2116
  • [7] Patient-reported outcomes: pathways to better health, better services, and better societies
    Black, N.
    Burke, L.
    Forrest, C. B.
    Sieberer, U. H. Ravens
    Ahmed, S.
    Valderas, J. M.
    Bartlett, S. J.
    Alonso, J.
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2016, 25 (05) : 1103 - 1112
  • [8] Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review
    Boyce, Maria B.
    Browne, John P.
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2013, 22 (09) : 2265 - 2278
  • [9] Use of a single-item screening tool to detect clinically significant fatigue, pain, distress, and anorexia in ambulatory cancer practice
    Butt, Zeeshan
    Wagner, Lynne I.
    Beaumont, Jennifer L.
    Paice, Judith A.
    Peterman, Amy H.
    Shevrin, Dan
    Von Roenn, Jamie H.
    Carro, George
    Straus, Joshua L.
    Muir, J. Cameron
    Cella, David
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2008, 35 (01) : 20 - 30
  • [10] The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment
    Cella, David
    Gershon, Richard
    Lai, Jin-Shei
    Choi, Seung
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2007, 16 (Suppl 1) : 133 - 141