Quality of Life Research

, Volume 16, Supplement 1, pp 175–186 | Cite as

Enhancing measurement in health outcomes research supported by Agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services

  • Bryce B. Reeve
  • Laurie B. Burke
  • Yen-pin Chiang
  • Steven B. Clauser
  • Lisa J. Colpe
  • Jeffrey W. Elias
  • John Fleishman
  • Ann A. Hohmann
  • Wendy L. Johnson-Taylor
  • William Lawrence
  • Claudia S. Moy
  • Louis A. Quatrano
  • William T. Riley
  • Barbara A. Smothers
  • Ellen M. Werner
Original Paper

Abstract

Many of the Institutes, Agencies and Centers that make up the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have recognized the need for better instrumentation in health outcomes research, and provide support, both internally and externally, for research utilizing advances in measurement theory and computer technology (informatics). In this paper, representatives from several DHHS agencies and institutes will discuss their need for better instruments within their discipline and describe current or future initiatives for exploring the benefits of these technologies. Together, the perspectives underscore the importance of developing valid, precise, and efficient measures to capture the full burden of disease and treatment on patients. Initiatives, like the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to create health-related quality of life item banks, represent a trans-DHHS effort to develop a standard set of measures for informing decision making in clinical research, practice, and health policy.

Keywords

Item response theory Computerized-adaptive testing Patient-reported outcomes Health-related quality of life 

References

  1. 1.
    NIH Roadmap: Accelerating Medical Discovery to Improve Health [web site]. Retrieved November 27, 2006 from: http://www.nihroadmap.nih.gov..
  2. 2.
    Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [web site]. Retrieved November 22, 2006 from: http://www.nihpromis.org
  3. 3.
    Lipscomb, J., Donaldson, M. S., & Hiatt, R. A. (2004). Cancer outcomes research and the arenas of application. JNCI Monographs, 33, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Cancer Society. (2007). Cancer Facts & Figures 2007. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Panel (2004). National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Symptom management in cancer: pain, depression, and fatigue, July 15–17, 2002. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs 32, 9–16.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. F. (Eds.) (2005). Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods, and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gotay, C. C., Lipscomb, J., & Snyder, C. F. (2005). Reflections on COMWG findings and moving to the next phase. In J. Lipscomb, C. C. Gotay, & C. F. Snyder (Eds.), Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods, and applications (pp. 568–583). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Cancer Institute. The NCI Strategic Plan for Leading the Nation to Eliminate the Suffering and Death Due to Cancer. NIH Publication No. 06–5773, January 2006, Bethesda, MD, Retrieved January 30, 2007 from: http://www.strategicplan.nci.nih.gov/
  9. 9.
    National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society co-sponsored conference: Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials: Evaluating and Enhancing the Payoff to Decision Making [web site]. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from: http://www.outcomes.cancer.gov/publications/workshops/proact/
  10. 10.
    Outcomes Research Branch, National Cancer Institute [website]. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from: http://www.outcomes.cancer.gov
  11. 11.
    Ogden, C., Carol, M., & McDowell, M., et al. (2006). Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States 1999–2004. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1540–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonow, R. O. (2003). The challenge of balancing scientific discovery and translation. Circulation, 107(3), 358–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hill, J. O., & Peters, J. C. (1998). Environmental contributions to the obesity epidemic. Science, 280, 1371–1374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Evans, W. D., Finkelstein, E. A., Kamerow, D. B., & Renaud, J. M. (2005). Public perceptions of childhood obesity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(1), 26–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. [Rockville, MD]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General. Available from: U.S. GPO, Washington.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wee, C., Phillips, R., & Legedza, A., et al. (2005). Health care expenditures association with overweight and obesity among US adults: Importance of age and race. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 159–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, To Improve the Health and Wellness of Persons with Disabilities [website]. Washington, DC, Office on Disability. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from: http://www.hhs.gov/od
  18. 18.
    Fuhrer, M. J. (Ed.) (1997). Assessing Medical Rehabilitation Practices The Promise of Outcomes Research. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Research Plan for the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (1993). Bethesda, MD: NIH Publication No. 93–3509.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    World Health Organization. (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. Geneva.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brandt, E. N. Jr., & Pope, A. M. (Eds.) (1997). Enabling America: Assessing the role of rehabilitation science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peterson, C. M., & Harvath, L. (2004). Current and future commitment to hematology research. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America, 18, 1215–1234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Health Interview Survey. (2003). Summary Statistics for U.S. Adults, Appendix III, Table I.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    National Health Interview Survey (2003). Summary Statistics for U.S. Adults, Appendix III, Table IV.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Health Interview Survey (2004). Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children, Appendix III, Table IV.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (2002). Sickle cell research for treatment and cure. Bethesda, MD: NIH Publication No. 02–5214.)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. DHHS [website]. Retrieved November 27, 2006 from: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hbd/hemophilia.htm/
  28. 28.
    Smith, H. C., Frye, R. L., & Piehler, J. M. (1983). Does coronary bypass surgery have a favorable influence on the qualify of life?. Cardiovascular Clinics, 13, 253–264.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heaton, R. K., Grant, I., McSweeny, A. J., Adams, K. M. & Petty, T. L. (1983). Psychological effects of continuous and nocturnal oxygen therapy in hypoxemic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 143(1), 1941–1947.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. [website]. Workshop on Adults with Sickle Cell Diseases: Meeting Unmet Needs. Executive Summary and Recommendations. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/scdmtg/execsum.htm/
  31. 31.
    Hispanic Community Health Study [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.cscc.unc.edu/hchs
  32. 32.
    The Health Measurement Research Group [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.healthmeasurement.org
  33. 33.
    Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mroczek, D. K., & Spiro, A. (2003). Modeling intraindividual change in personality traits: findings from the normative aging study. Journal of Gerontology B Psychological Science and Social Science, 58(3), 153–165.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., & Love, G. (2004). Positive health: connecting well-being with biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 359, 1383–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science, 306, 1776–1780.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.rcmar.ucla.edu/
  38. 38.
    Murray, C. J. L., & Lopez, A. D. (Eds.). (1996). The global burden of disease and injury series: A comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020 (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard School of Public Health on behalf of the World Health Organization and the World Bank, Harvard University Press.)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Gibbon, M. & First, M. B. (1992). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID): I. history, rationale, and description. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49, 624–629.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aggen, S. H., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2005). DSM criteria for major depression: Evaluating symptom patterns using latent-trait item response models. Psychological Medicine, 35, 475–487.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kraemer, H. C., Noda, A., & O’Hara, R. (2004). Categorical versus dimensional approaches to diagnosis: Methodological challenges. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 38, 17–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kupfer, D. J. (2005). Dimensional models for research and diagnosis: A current dilemma. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 557–559.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Evans, D. L., Charney, D. S., & Lewis, L. et al. (2005). Mood disorders in the medically ill: Scientific review and recommendations. Biological Psychiatry, 58, 175–189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Green, M. F., Nuechterlein, K. H., & Gold, J. M., et al. (2004). Approaching a consensus cognitive battery for clinical trials in schizophrenia: The NIMH-MATRICS Conference to select cognitive domains and test criteria. Biological Psychiatry, 56, 301–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    National Institute of Mental Health. [website]. Program Announcement: Functional Assessment of People with Mental Disorders. Retrieved November 27, 2006 from: http://www.grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-05-037.html/
  46. 46.
    National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. [website]. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/
  47. 47.
    National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement on Improving End-of-Life Care [website]. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from: http://www.consensus.nih.gov/2004/2004EndOfLifeCareSOS024html.htm/
  48. 48.
    Hays, R. D., Shaul, J. A., Williams, V.S., et al. (1999). Psychometric properties of the CAHPS 1.0 survey measures. Medical Care, 37(supplement), 22–31.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Marshall, G. N., Morales, L. S., & Elliott, M., et al. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 1.0 core survey. Psychological Assessment, 13, 216–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hargreaves, J. L., Hays, R. D., & Cleary, P. D. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey. Health Services Research, 38, 1509–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bender, R. H., & Garfinkel, S. A. (2001). Differences in the structure of CAHPS measures among the Medicare fee-for-service, Medicare managed care, and privately insured populations. Health Services Research, 36, 489–508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hays, R. D., Brown, J., Brown, L. U., Spritzer, K. L., & Crall, J. J. (2006). Classical test theory and item response theory analyses of multi-item scales assessing parents’ perceptions of their children’s dental care. Medical Care, 44(11 suppl. 3), S60–S68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Moher, D., Schachter, H. M., Mamaladze, V., et al. (2004). Quality of breast cancer care in women. Summary, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 105. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publication No. 04-E030–1.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fleishman, J. A., & Lawrence, W. F. (2003). Demographic variation in SF-12 scores: True differences or differential item functioning. Medical Care, 41, III-75–III-86.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/
  56. 56.
    Food and Drug Administration, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. Retrieved March 11, 2004, from: http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.html/
  57. 57.
    Food and Drug Administration. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.pdf/
  58. 58.
    Bren, L. (2006). The importance of patient-reported outcomes... It’s all about the patients. FDA Consumer, 40, 27–32.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Dueck, A., Halyard, M. Y., Frost, M. H., & Sloan, J. A. (2006). Meeting on the FDA Draft Guidance on Patient-Reported Outcomes. Patient Reported Outcomes Newsletter, 36, 1–4.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Revicki, D. A. (2007). FDA draft guidance and health-outcomes research. Lancet, 369, 540–542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryce B. Reeve
    • 1
  • Laurie B. Burke
    • 2
  • Yen-pin Chiang
    • 3
  • Steven B. Clauser
    • 1
  • Lisa J. Colpe
    • 4
  • Jeffrey W. Elias
    • 5
  • John Fleishman
    • 3
  • Ann A. Hohmann
    • 6
  • Wendy L. Johnson-Taylor
    • 7
  • William Lawrence
    • 3
  • Claudia S. Moy
    • 8
  • Louis A. Quatrano
    • 9
    • 10
  • William T. Riley
    • 6
  • Barbara A. Smothers
    • 11
  • Ellen M. Werner
    • 12
  1. 1.Outcomes Research Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population SciencesNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Food and Drug AdministrationRockvilleUSA
  3. 3.Agency for Healthcare Research and QualityRockvilleUSA
  4. 4.National Institutes of Health (Currently at Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration)RockvilleUSA
  5. 5.National Institute on AgingBethesdaUSA
  6. 6.National Institute of Mental HealthBethesdaUSA
  7. 7.Division of Nutrition Research CoordinationBethesdaUSA
  8. 8.National Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeBethesdaUSA
  9. 9.National Center for Medical Rehabilitation ResearchBethesdaUSA
  10. 10.National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentBethesdaUSA
  11. 11.National Institute of Nursing ResearchBethesdaUSA
  12. 12.National Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations