Quality of Life Research

, Volume 26, Issue 12, pp 3377–3385 | Cite as

Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system

  • Janel HanmerEmail author
  • David Cella
  • David Feeny
  • Baruch Fischhoff
  • Ron D. Hays
  • Rachel Hess
  • Paul A. Pilkonis
  • Dennis Revicki
  • Mark Roberts
  • Joel Tsevat
  • Lan Yu



We sought to select a parsimonious subset of domains from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) that could be used for preference-based valuation. Domain selection criteria included face validity, comprehensiveness, and structural independence.


First, 9 health outcomes measurement experts selected domains appropriate for a general health measure using a modified Delphi procedure. Second, 50 adult community members assessed structural independence of domain pairs. For each pair, the participant was asked if it were possible to have simultaneously good functioning in domain 1 but poor functioning in domain 2, and vice versa. The community members also rated the relative importance of the domains. Finally, the experts selected domains, guided by community members’ judgments of structural independence and importance.


After 3 rounds of surveys, the experts agreed on 10 potential domains. The percent of pairs deemed structurally independent by community members ranged from 50 to 95 (mean = 78). Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression were retained because of their inclusion in existing preference-based measures and their importance to community members. Four other domains were added because they were important to community members and judged to be independent by at least 67% of respondents: Cognitive Function—Abilities; Fatigue; Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities; and Sleep Disturbance.


With input from measurement experts and community members, we selected 7 PROMIS domains that can be used to create a preference-based score.


Health-related quality of life Utility Multi-attribute utility instrument Health domains PROMIS® Health status 



Janel Hanmer was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number KL2TR001856. Participant recruitment was completed by the Clinical and Translational Science Institute at the University of Pittsburgh, which is supported by the National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award program, Grants UL1RR024153 and UL1TR000005. The funding agreements ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. IRB approval for the project was obtained from the University of Pittsburgh (PRO14070021 and PRO14100533).


  1. 1.
    McHorney, C. A. (1999). Health status assessment methods for adults: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Annual Review of Public Health, 20, 309–335.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fryback, D., Dunham, N. C., Palta, M., Hanmer, J., Buechner, J., Cherepanov, D., et al. (2007). US norms for six generic health-related quality of life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Medical Care, 45, 1162–1170.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., 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), S3–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cella, D., Riley, W., Reeve, B., Stone, A., Young, S., Rothrock, N., et al. (2010). Initial item banks and first wave testing of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) network: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Torrance, G. (1986). Measurement of health-state utilities for economic appraisal: A review. Journal of Health Economics, 5, 1–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., & Russell, L. B. (Eds.). (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neumann, Peter J., Sanders, Gillian D., Russell, Louise B., Siegel, Joanna E., & Ganiats, Theodore G. (Eds.). (2016). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weinstein, M. C., & Stason, W. B. (1977). Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practice. New England Journal of Medicine, 296, 716–721.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brazier, J., Ratcliff, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitchell, A. S., & Viney, R. (2010). Meeting the information needs of a national drug payer: Aspirations of the guidelines from Australia. Drug Development Research, 71(8), 463–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mittmann, N., Evans, W. K., Rocchi, A., Longo, C. J., Au, H.-J., Husereau, D., et al. (2009). Addendum to CADTH’s guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Specific guidance for oncology products. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies. in HealthGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson, F. R., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Mühlbacher, A., Regier, D. A., et al. (2013). Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health, 16(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Riley, W. T., Rothrock, N., Bruce, B., Christodolou, C., Cook, K., Hahn, E. A., 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hanmer, Janel, Feeny, David, Fischhoff, Baruch, Hays, Ron D., Hess, Rachel, Pilkonis, Paul A., et al. (2015). The PROMIS of QALYs. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brooks, R., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and singleattribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feeny, D., Torrance, G., & Furlong, W. (1996). Health Utilities Index. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaplan, R. M., Sieber, W. J., & Ganiats, T. G. (1997). The quality of well-being scale: Comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychology and Health, 12(6), 783–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42, 851–859.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Collins, F. S., & Riley, W. T. (2016). NIH’s transformative opportunities for the behavioral and social sciences. Science Translational Medicine, 23(8), 366.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alonso, J., Bartlett, S. J., Rose, R., Aaronson, N. K., Chaplin, J. E., Efficace, F., et al. (2013). The case for an international patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS(R)) initiative. Health Quality Life Outcomes, 11, 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hays, R.D., Revicki, D.A., Feeny, D., Fayers, P., Spritzer, K.L., Cella, D. (2016). 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 (ePub).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Revicki, D. A., Kawata, A. K., Harnam, N., Chen, W. H., Hays, R. D., & Cella, D. (2009). 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. Quality of Life Research, 18(6), 783–791.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Craig, B. M., Reeve, B. B., Brown, P. M., Cella, D., Lipscomb, J., Pickard, S., et al. (2014). US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value in Health, 17(8), 846–853.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janel Hanmer
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Cella
    • 2
  • David Feeny
    • 3
    • 4
  • Baruch Fischhoff
    • 5
  • Ron D. Hays
    • 6
  • Rachel Hess
    • 7
  • Paul A. Pilkonis
    • 8
  • Dennis Revicki
    • 9
  • Mark Roberts
    • 10
    • 11
  • Joel Tsevat
    • 12
  • Lan Yu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General Internal MedicineUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medical Social SciencesNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Health Utilities IncorporatedDundasCanada
  5. 5.Department of Engineering and Public Policy and Institute for Politics and StrategyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  6. 6.Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services ResearchUCLALos AngelesUSA
  7. 7.Division of Health System Innovation and ResearchUniversity of Utah Schools of the Health SciencesSalt Lake CityUSA
  8. 8.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  9. 9.Outcomes Research, EvideraBethesdaUSA
  10. 10.Department of General Internal MedicineUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  11. 11.Department of Health Policy and ManagementUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  12. 12.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of Cincinnati College of Medicine and Cincinnati VA Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations