Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 10/2016

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

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

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
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.
2.
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.
3.
Kaplan RM, Feeny D, Revicki DA. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference-based outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:467–75.CrossRefPubMed
4.
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
5.
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
6.
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
7.
Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490–502.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
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.
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.
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.
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.
33.
Hanmer J, Feeny D, Fischoff B, et al. The PROMIS of QALYs. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;3:122.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS® Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3
Authors
Ron D. Hays
Dennis A. Revicki
David Feeny
Peter Fayers
Karen L. Spritzer
David Cella
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0408-x

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

PharmacoEconomics 10/2016 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Real-World Evidence: A Comparison of the Australian Herceptin Program and Clinical Trials of Trastuzumab for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

Review Article

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

Original Research Article

BEACON: A Summary Framework to Overcome Potential Reimbursement Hurdles

Commentary

Performance-Based Agreements in Italy: ‘Trendy Outcomes’ or Mere Illusions?

Research Letter

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

Review Article

Sustainable Financing of Innovative Therapies: A Review of Approaches