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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
Kaplan RM, Feeny D, Revicki DA. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference-based outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:467–75.
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.
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.
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.
Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490–502.
Brooks R. The EuroQol group after 25 years. New York: Springer; 2013.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluations in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587–611.
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.
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.
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.
Fayers PM, Hays RD. Should linking replace regression when mapping from profile to preference-based measures? Value Health. 2014;17:261–5.
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.
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.
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.
Feeny D, Kaplan MS, Huguet N, et al. Comparing population health in the United States and Canada. Popul Health Metr. 2010;8:8.
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.
Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.
Hays RD, Liu H, Kapteyn A. Use of internet panels to conduct surveys. Behav Res Methods. 2015;47:685–90.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Craig BM, Reeve BB, Brown PM, et al. US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value Health. 2014;17:846–53.
Hanmer J, Feeny D, Fischoff B, et al. The PROMIS of QALYs. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;3:122.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant from National Cancer Institute (1U2-CCA186878-01) and a supplement to the PROMIS statistical center grant (3U54AR057951-04S4). Ron D. Hays, Dennis A. Revicki, Peter Fayers, Karen L. Spritzer, and David Cella declare no conflicts of interest. David Feeny has a proprietary interest in Health Utilities Incorporated, Dundas, Ontario, Canada.
Author Contributions
Ron D. Hays drafted the article and supervised the analyses of the data. All other authors provided edits to the draft article. David Feeny and Peter Fayers provided input on the statistical analyses. Karen L. Spritzer implemented the analyses.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hays, R.D., Revicki, D.A., Feeny, D. et al. Using Linear Equating to Map PROMIS® Global Health Items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 Profile Measure to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. PharmacoEconomics 34, 1015–1022 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0408-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0408-x