Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NIH Roadmap: Accelerating Medical Discovery to Improve Health [web site]. Retrieved November 27, 2006 from: http://www.nihroadmap.nih.gov..

  2. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [web site]. Retrieved November 22, 2006 from: http://www.nihpromis.org

  3. Lipscomb, J., Donaldson, M. S., & Hiatt, R. A. (2004). Cancer outcomes research and the arenas of application. JNCI Monographs, 33, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. American Cancer Society. (2007). Cancer Facts & Figures 2007. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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 Press

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Outcomes Research Branch, National Cancer Institute [website]. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from: http://www.outcomes.cancer.gov

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bonow, R. O. (2003). The challenge of balancing scientific discovery and translation. Circulation, 107(3), 358–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hill, J. O., & Peters, J. C. (1998). Environmental contributions to the obesity epidemic. Science, 280, 1371–1374.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Fuhrer, M. J. (Ed.) (1997). Assessing Medical Rehabilitation Practices The Promise of Outcomes Research. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Research Plan for the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (1993). Bethesda, MD: NIH Publication No. 93–3509.

  20. World Health Organization. (1980). International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. Geneva.

  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. Peterson, C. M., & Harvath, L. (2004). Current and future commitment to hematology research. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America, 18, 1215–1234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. National Health Interview Survey. (2003). Summary Statistics for U.S. Adults, Appendix III, Table I.

  24. National Health Interview Survey (2003). Summary Statistics for U.S. Adults, Appendix III, Table IV.

  25. National Health Interview Survey (2004). Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children, Appendix III, Table IV.

  26. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (2002). Sickle cell research for treatment and cure. Bethesda, MD: NIH Publication No. 02–5214.)

  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. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Hispanic Community Health Study [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.cscc.unc.edu/hchs

  32. The Health Measurement Research Group [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.healthmeasurement.org

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.rcmar.ucla.edu/

  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.)

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kupfer, D. J. (2005). Dimensional models for research and diagnosis: A current dilemma. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 557–559.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. [website]. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/

  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. 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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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.

  55. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). [website]. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/

  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. 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. Bren, L. (2006). The importance of patient-reported outcomes... It’s all about the patients. FDA Consumer, 40, 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Revicki, D. A. (2007). FDA draft guidance and health-outcomes research. Lancet, 369, 540–542.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Outcomes Research Branch, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, EPN 4005, 6130 Executive Blvd., MSC 7344, Bethesda, MD, 20892-7344, USA

    Bryce B. Reeve & Steven B. Clauser

  2. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA

    Laurie B. Burke

  3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, USA

    Yen-pin Chiang, John Fleishman & William Lawrence

  4. National Institutes of Health (Currently at Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration), Rockville, MD, USA

    Lisa J. Colpe

  5. National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Jeffrey W. Elias

  6. National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Ann A. Hohmann & William T. Riley

  7. Division of Nutrition Research Coordination, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Wendy L. Johnson-Taylor

  8. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Claudia S. Moy

  9. National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Louis A. Quatrano

  10. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Louis A. Quatrano

  11. National Institute of Nursing Research, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Barbara A. Smothers

  12. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Ellen M. Werner

Authors
  1. Bryce B. Reeve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laurie B. Burke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yen-pin Chiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steven B. Clauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lisa J. Colpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeffrey W. Elias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John Fleishman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ann A. Hohmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Wendy L. Johnson-Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. William Lawrence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Claudia S. Moy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Louis A. Quatrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. William T. Riley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Barbara A. Smothers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ellen M. Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bryce B. Reeve.

Additional information

This paper was written by authors in their capacity as employees of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), but the views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent those of their Institute, Agency, or Center of DHHS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reeve, B.B., Burke, L.B., Chiang, Yp. et al. Enhancing measurement in health outcomes research supported by Agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services. Qual Life Res 16 (Suppl 1), 175–186 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9190-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9190-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation