Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items
- PMID: 19543809
- PMCID: PMC2724630
- DOI: 10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9
Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items
Abstract
Background: The use of global health items permits an efficient way of gathering general perceptions of health. These items provide useful summary information about health and are predictive of health care utilization and subsequent mortality.
Methods: Analyses of 10 self-reported global health items obtained from an internet survey as part of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) project. We derived summary scores from the global health items. We estimated the associations of the summary scores with the EQ-5D index score and the PROMIS physical function, pain, fatigue, emotional distress, and social health domain scores.
Results: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a two-factor model. Global physical health (GPH; 4 items on overall physical health, physical function, pain, and fatigue) and global mental health (GMH; 4 items on quality of life, mental health, satisfaction with social activities, and emotional problems) scales were created. The scales had internal consistency reliability coefficients of 0.81 and 0.86, respectively. GPH correlated more strongly with the EQ-5D than did GMH (r = 0.76 vs. 0.59). GPH correlated most strongly with pain impact (r = -0.75) whereas GMH correlated most strongly with depressive symptoms (r = -0.71).
Conclusions: Two dimensions representing physical and mental health underlie the global health items in PROMIS. These global health scales can be used to efficiently summarize physical and mental health in patient-reported outcome studies.
References
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1146/annurev.publhealth.20.1.309', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.20.1.309'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '10352861', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10352861/'}]}
- McHorney, C. A. (1999). Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annual Review of Public Health,20, 309–335. - PubMed
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.06.078'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '14966096', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14966096/'}]}
- Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology,22, 714–724. - PubMed
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.2165/00019053-200017010-00002', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200017010-00002'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '10747763', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10747763/'}]}
- Coons, S. J., Rao, S., Keininger, D. L., & Hays, R. D. (2000). A comparative review of generic quality of life instruments. PharmacoEconomics,17, 13–35. - PubMed
-
- None
- Nelson, E. C., Wasson, J. H., Johnson, D. J., & Hays, R. D. (1996). Dartmouth COOP functional health assessment charts: Brief measures for clinical practice. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 161–168). New York: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
-
- None
- Bjorner, J. B., Fayers, P. M., & Idler, E. L. (2005). Self-rated health. In P. M. Fayers & R. D. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life (pp. 309–323). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
