Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-8
Estimation of a Preference-Based Summary Score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: The PROMIS ® -Preference (PROPr) Scoring System
Background. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) preference-based scores are used to assess the health of populations and patients and for cost-effectiveness analyses. The National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) consists of patient-reported outcome measures developed using item response theory. PROMIS is in need of a direct preference-based scoring system for assigning values to health states. Objective. To produce societal preference-based scores for 7 PROMIS domains: Cognitive Function–Abilities, Depression, Fatigue, Pain Interference, Physical Function, Sleep Disturbance, and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities. Setting. Online survey of a US nationally representative sample (n = 983). Methods. Preferences for PROMIS health states were elicited with the standard gamble to obtain both single-attribute scoring functions for each of the 7 PROMIS domains and a multiplicative multiattribute utility (scoring) function. Results. The 7 single-attribute scoring functions were fit using isotonic regression with linear interpolation. The multiplicative multiattribute summary function estimates utilities for PROMIS multiattribute health states on a scale where 0 is the utility of being dead and 1 the utility of “full health.” The lowest possible score is –0.022 (for a state viewed as worse than dead), and the highest possible score is 1. Limitations. The online survey systematically excludes some subgroups, such as the visually impaired and illiterate. Conclusions. A generic societal preference-based scoring system is now available for all studies using these 7 PROMIS health domains.
TorranceGWFeenyDFurlongWJBarrRDZhangYWangQ.Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34(7):702–22.
2.
FeenyDFurlongWTorranceGWet al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40(2):113–28.
3.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy (New York). 1990;(16):199–208.
4.
HerdmanMGudexCLloydAet al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.
5.
KaplanRMAndersonJPGaniatsTG. The quality of well-being scale: Rationale for a single quality of life index. In: Walker SR, Rosser RM, editors. Quality of life assessment: Key issues in the 1990s. Dordrecht: Springer; 1993.
6.
BrazierJRobertsJDeverillM.The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. J Health Econ. 2002;21(9):271–92.
7.
ToshJBrazierJEvansPLongworthL.A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15(1):118–27.
8.
McNameePSeymourJ.Comparing generic preference-based health-related quality-of-life measures: advancing the research agenda. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005;5(5):567–82.
9.
KaplanRMTallySHaysRDet al. Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure patients were not equally responsive to change. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(5):497–506.
10.
FeenyDKrahnMProsserLASalomonJA.Valuing health outcomes—online appendices. In: NeumannPJSandersGDRussellLBSiegelJEGaniatsTG eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press; 2016. p 167–99.
11.
FrybackDG. Measuring health-related quality of life. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Advancing Social Science Theory: The Importance of Common Metrics. National Academies, Washington, DC, February 25–26, 2010.
12.
von NeumannJMorgensternO. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1944.
13.
KeeneyRLRaiffaH.Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley; 2003.
14.
DewittBDavisAFischhoffBHanmerJ.An approach to reconciling competing ethical principles in aggregating heterogeneous health preferences. Med Decis Making. 2017;37:647–56.
15.
TorranceGWBoyleMHHorwoodSP.Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res. 1982;30(6):1043–69.
16.
CellaDYountSRothrockNet al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap Cooperative Group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45(5):3–11.
17.
CellaDGershonRLaiJSChoiS.The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(Suppl. 1):133–41.
18.
CellaDRileyWStoneAet al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179–94.
19.
EmbretsonSReiseSP.Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2000.
20.
ReeveBBHaysRDBjornerJBet al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007;45(1):S22–S31.
21.
CollinsFSRileyWT.NIH’s transformative opportunities for the behavioral and social sciences. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:366ed14.
22.
GershonRCRothrockNHanrahanRBassMCellaD.The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research. J Appl Meas. 2010;11(3):304–14.
23.
HanmerJFeenyDFischhoffBet al. The PROMIS of QALYs. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:122.
24.
HanmerJCellaDFeenyDet al. Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(12):3377–85.
25.
HanmerJCellaDFeenyDv
. Evaluation of options for presenting health-states from PROMIS® item banks for valuation exercises. Qual Life Res. 2018;doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1852-1
26.
HanmerJDewittB.PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score construction—a technical report. 2017. Available from: janelhanmer.pitt.edu/PROPr.html
27.
LuceRDSuppesP.Preferences, utility, and subjective probability. In: LuceRDBushRRGalanterE, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology. New York: John Wiley; 1965. p 249–410.
28.
SavageLJ.The Foundations of Statistics. 2nd rev. New York: Dover; 1972.
29.
CoombsCHDawesRMTverskyA.Mathematical Psychology: An Elementary Introduction. New York: Prentice-Hall; 1970.
30.
FurlongWFeenyDTorranceGWet al. Multiplicative Multi-Attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A Technical Report. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis; 1998. Report No.: 98–11.
GafniA.The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res. 1994;29(2):207–24.
33.
TorranceGWFeenyDFurlongW.Visual analog scales. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(4):329–34.
34.
McNaughtonCDCavanaughKLKripalaniSRothmanRLWallstonKA.Validation of a short, 3-item version of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(8):932–6.
35.
EngelLBansbackNBryanSDoyle-WatersMMWhitehurstDGT. Exclusion criteria in national health state valuation studies: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(7):798–810.
36.
van der PolMCurrieGKrommSRyanM. Specification of the utility function in discrete choice experiments. Value Health. 2014;17(2):297–301.
37.
TourangeauRPlewesTJ, ed. Nonresponse in Social Science Surveys: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013.
38.
VersteeghMMBrouwerWBF. Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:66–74.
DoldersMGTZeegersMPAGrootWAmentA. A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):653–64.
41.
MulhernBRowenDSnapeDet al. Valuations of epilepsy-specific health states: a comparison of patients with epilepsy and the general population. Epilepsy Behav. 2014;36C:12–7.
42.
NeumannPJGoldieSJWeinsteinMC.Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587–611.
43.
FeenyDBlanchardCMahonJLet al. Comparing community-preference-based and direct standard gamble utility scores: evidence from elective total hip arthroplasty. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19(2):362–72.
44.
FeenyDFurlongWSaigalSSunJ.Comparing directly measured standard gamble scores to HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores: group- and individual-level comparisons. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(4):799–809.
45.
FeenyDWuLEngK.Comparing Short Form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(10):1659–70.
46.
KrahnMRitvoPIrvineJet al. Preferences for outcomes patient and community in prostate cancer: implications for clinical policy. Med Care. 2003;41(1):153–64.
47.
PeetersYStiggelboutAM.Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health. 2010;13(2):306–9.
48.
ZethraeusNJohannessonM.A comparison of patient and social tariff values derived from the time trade-off method. Health Econ. 1999;8:541–5.
49.
SandersGDNeumannPJBasuAet al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103.
50.
WittenbergEProsserLA.Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses: a framework for understanding who, why and what to do. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(4):225–41.
51.
FrybackDGPaltaMCherepanovDBoltDKimJ-S.Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(1):5–15.
52.
ChanKKWXieFWillanARPullenayegumE. Underestimation of variance of predicted health utilities derived from multiattribute utility instruments: the use of multiple imputation as a potential solution. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(3):262–72.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
