Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1677–1686 | Cite as

Concept Analysis of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)

  • Carole A. Tucker
  • Alarcos Cieza
  • Anne W. Riley
  • Gerold Stucki
  • Jin Shei Lai
  • T. Bedirhan Ustun
  • Nenad Kostanjsek
  • William Riley
  • David Cella
  • Christopher B. Forrest
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS ® ) is a US National Institutes of Health initiative that has produced self-report outcome measures, using a framework of physical, mental, and social health defined by the World Health Organization in 1948 (WHO, in Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 1948). The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is a comprehensive classification system of health and health-related domains that was put forward in 2001. The purpose of this report is to compare and contrast PROMIS and ICF conceptual frameworks to support mapping of PROMIS instruments to the ICF classification system .

Methods

We assessed the objectives and the classification schema of the PROMIS and ICF frameworks, followed by content analysis to determine whether PROMIS domain and sub-domain level health concepts can be linked to the ICF classification.

Results

Both PROMIS and ICF are relevant to all individuals, irrespective of the presence of health conditions, person characteristics, or environmental factors in which persons live. PROMIS measures are intended to assess a person’s experiences of his or her health, functional status, and well-being in multiple domains across physical, mental, and social dimensions. The ICF comprehensively describes human functioning from a biological, individual, and social perspective. The ICF supports classification of health and health-related states such as functioning, but is not a specific measure or assessment of health, per se. PROMIS domains and sub-domain concepts can be meaningfully mapped to ICF concepts.

Conclusions

Theoretical and conceptual similarities support the use of PROMIS instruments to operationalize self-reported measurement for many body function, activity and participation ICF concepts, as well as several environmental factor concepts. Differences observed in PROMIS and ICF conceptual frameworks provide a stimulus for future research and development.

Keywords

Health PROMIS ICF Self-report Outcomes Functioning 

References

  1. 1.
    WHO (1948). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19–22 June 1946, and entered into force on 7 April 1948.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Üstün, B., & Jakob, R. (2005). Calling a spade a spade: Meaningful definitions of health conditions. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 83, 802.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ICF (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ustun, T. B., Chatterji, S., Bickenbach, J., Kostanjsek, N., & Schneider, M. (2003). The international classification of functioning, disability and health: A new tool for understanding disability and health. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(11–12), 565–571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cieza, A., Geyh, S., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Ustün, B., & Stucki, G. (2005). ICF linking rules: An update based on lessons learned. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 37, 212–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geyh, S., Cieza, A., Kolleris, B., Grimby, G., & Stucki, G. (2007). Content comparison of health-related quality of life measures used in stroke based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF): A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 833–851.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riley, W. T., Rothrock, N., Bruce, B., et al. (2010). Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: Further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks. Quality of Life Research, 19(9), 1311–1321.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McDougall, J., Wright, V., & Rosenbaum, P. (2010). The ICF model of functioning and disability: Incorporating quality of life and human development. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13(3), 204–211. doi: 10.3109/17518421003620525.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    PROMIS® Instrument Development and Psychometric Evaluation Scientific Standards. http://www.nihpromis.org/Documents/PROMIS_Standards_050212.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2012.
  11. 11.
    Carle, A. C., Cella, D., Cai, L., Choi, S. W., Crane, P. K., Curtis, S. M., et al. (2011). Advancing PROMIS’s methodology: Results of the third Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) Psychometric Summit. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 11(6), 677-84. doi:  10.1586/erp.11.74.
  12. 12.
    Oberhauser, C., Escorpizo, R., Boonen, A., Stucki, G., & Cieza, A. (2012). A statistical validation of the Brief ICF Core Set for osteoarthritis based on a large international sample of patients with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Jun 28. doi:  10.1002/acr.21775.
  13. 13.
    Kus, S., Oberhauser, C., Cieza, A. (2012). Validation of the brief International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) core set for hand conditions. Journal of Hand Therapy, 25(3), 274–286; quiz 287. doi:  10.1016/j.jht.2012.02.003.
  14. 14.
    Glocker, C., Kirchberger, I., Glaessel, A., Fincziczki, A., Stucki, G., & Cieza, A. (2012). Content validity of the comprehensive international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) core set for low back pain from the perspective of physicians: a Delphi survey. Chronic Illness. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 22689356.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cieza, A., Brockow, T., Ewert, T., et al. (2002). Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34, 205–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghazvinian, A., Noy, N. F., & Musen, M. A. (2009). Creating mappings for ontologies in biomedicine: Simple methods work. In AMIA annual symposium (AMIA 2009), San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tucker, C.A., Escorpizo, R., Cieza, A., Lai, J. S., Stucki, G., Ustun, T.B., et al. (2013). Describing the Content of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Using the International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability (in review 12/2013).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carole A. Tucker
    • 1
  • Alarcos Cieza
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anne W. Riley
    • 4
  • Gerold Stucki
    • 3
    • 5
  • Jin Shei Lai
    • 6
  • T. Bedirhan Ustun
    • 7
  • Nenad Kostanjsek
    • 7
  • William Riley
    • 8
  • David Cella
    • 6
  • Christopher B. Forrest
    • 9
    • 10
    • 11
  1. 1.College of Health Professions and Social WorkTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.ICF Research Branch of the WHO Collaborating Centre for the Family of International Classifications in Germany (DIMDI)NottwilSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of Population and Family Health SciencesJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Swiss Paraplegic ResearchNottwilSwitzerland
  6. 6.Department of Medical Social SciencesNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  7. 7.World Health OrganizationCTS TeamGenevaSwitzerland
  8. 8.National Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  9. 9.The Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphiaUSA
  10. 10.Department of PediatricsUniversity of Pennsylvania School of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA
  11. 11.Leonard Davis Institute of Health EconomicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations