Comparison of the PROMIS Preference Score (PROPr) and EQ-5D-5L Index Value in General Population Samples in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany

Measuring Value in Spine Care Using the PROMIS-Preference Scoring System

BACKGROUND

A transition to value-based care requires a thorough understanding of the costs and impacts of various interventions on patients' overall health utility. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has gained popularity and is frequently used to assess physical, mental, and social health domains in clinical and research settings. To assess health utility, the PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score, a societal preference-based measure, has been proposed to produce a single estimate of health utility. We determined the psychometric properties (validity and responsiveness) of the PROPr score as a health state utility measure in patients undergoing spine surgery. We hypothesized that PROPr score would be lower in the presence of comorbid conditions and lower socioeconomic status and in those with more severe pain-related disability and would be responsive to changes in health status following spine surgery.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, 904 adults presented for cervical (n = 359) and/or lumbar (n = 622) conditions, and 624 underwent surgery, from August 2019 through January 2022. To assess concurrent validity, we correlated the PROPr score with Neck Disability Index (NDI)/Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) values. To assess known-groups validity, we regressed the PROPr score on participant age, sex, pain-related disability, and social determinants of health. To assess responsiveness, we used an anchor-based approach, evaluating change from preoperatively to 6 and 12 months postoperatively anchored by the Patient Global Impression of Change. A p level of <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The median overall preoperative PROPr score was 0.20 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.10 to 0.32; range, -0.02 to 0.95). The PROPr score was associated with higher educational attainment (p = 0.01), higher household income (p < 0.001), and a greater number of comorbid conditions (p = 0.04). The median PROPr score decreased (worse health utility) with greater disability (NDI, 0.44 [none] to 0.09 [severe/complete], p < 0.001; ODI, 0.57 [none] to 0.08 [severe/complete], p < 0.001). The change in the median PROPr score differed in participants who rated their postoperative health as improved (0.17) compared with little or no change (0.04; p < 0.001) or worse (-0.06; p = 0.025) at 6 months and in those who rated their health as improved (0.15) compared with little or no change (0.02; p < 0.001) or worse (-0.05; p = 0.043) at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The PROPr score is a valid and responsive preference-based assessment of health utility for patients undergoing spine surgery. It can be calculated from PROMIS outcome data.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Effects of an Online Meditation Course on Quality of Life and Positive Emotions: A Prospective Observational Study (EXPANSION Study)

Background: Several meditation interventions showed positive effects on physical and mental health. The aim of this study is a first evaluation of the (within-group) effects of a 21-day online meditation course of the "expansion method." Methods: For this exploratory observational study, parameters were assessed at baseline, at 1 month, and at a 3-month follow-up. Exploratory endpoints were health-related quality of life (PROMIS Preference Score), global health (PROMIS) with the subscales physical and mental health, stress perception (Perceived Stress Scale), positive and negative affect regulation (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule), flourishing (Flourishing Scale), self-efficacy (Short Scale for Measuring General Self-Efficacy Beliefs), gratitude and awe (Gratitude and Awe Questionnaire), resilience (Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale), spirituality (Aspects of Spirituality), and mysticism (Mysticism Scale) on validated inventories. In addition, self-constructed questions (NRS) assessed health status, lifestyle, and concept evaluation. Results: Data from 359 participants were included in this study (response rate: 68% at 1 month, 46% at 3 months). The main analysis was based on the complete cases at 1 month (n = 244 participants; 84% female; 51 ± 11 years; 89% German). Medium effect sizes were found for mental health (p < 0.0001; d = 0.6), flourishing (p < 0.0001; d = 0.63), and negative affect (p < 0.0001; d = 0.68) at 1 month. Small effect sizes were obtained for physical health, stress, positive affect, self-efficacy, spirituality, and mysticism at 3 months. In a sensitivity analysis, the strongest effects at 1 month were found in the subgroup that completed per-protocol (n = 140), followed by those with complete data at all time points (n = 159). Effects were lowest in the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 359). The content of the course was positively evaluated by the participants. Conclusions: The online meditation course based on the expansion method had potentially beneficial effects, especially on mental health parameters. Based on the feasibility results, further research using randomized controlled designs is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04950543.

Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and PROPr in patients with spinal muscular atrophy

OBJECTIVES

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a rare monogenic neuromuscular disorder caused by loss of function mutations. Measuring health-related quality of life to support economic evaluations in this population is encouraged. However, empirical evidence on the performance of preference-based measures (PBMs) in individuals with SMA is limited. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System Preference measure (PROPr) in individuals with SMA.

METHODS

The data used in this study were obtained via a web-based, cross-sectional survey. All participants completed the self-reporting EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS-29 questionnaires. Information about their socioeconomic and health status was also obtained. Ceiling and floor effects, convergent and divergent validity, known-group validity, and the agreement between the two measures were assessed.

RESULTS

Strong ceiling and floor effects were observed for four dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L and three subscales, including pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function, of the PROMIS-29. All hypothesized associations between EQ-5D-5L/PROMIS-29 and other neuromuscular questions were confirmed, supporting good convergent validity. Moreover, both EQ-5D-5L and PROPr scores differentiated between impaired functional groups, demonstrating good discriminative ability. Poor agreement between the EQ-5D-5L and PROPr utility scores was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The EQ-5D-5L and PROPr both appear to be valid PBMs for individuals with SMA. However, PROPr yielded considerably lower utility scores than EQ-5D-5L and their agreement was poor. Therefore, these two PBMs may not be used interchangeably in economic evaluations of SMA-related interventions.

State-of-the-art Applications of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Spinal Care

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assign objective measures to patient's subjective experiences of health, pain, disability, function, and quality of life. PROMs can be useful for providers in shared decision making, outcome assessment, and indicating patients for surgery. In this article, we provide an overview of the legacy PROMs used in spinal care, recent advancements in patient-reported outcomes, and future directions in PROMs. Recent advances in patient-reported outcome assessments have included standardization of measurement tools, integration of data collection into workflow, and applications of outcome measures in predictive models and decision-making tools. Continual appraisal of instruments and incorporation into artificial intelligence and machine learning analytics will continue to augment the delivery of high-value spinal care.

Scale agreement, ceiling and floor effects, construct validity, and relative efficiency of the PROPr and EQ-5D-3L in low back pain patients

BACKGROUND

The PROMIS Preference score (PROPr) is a new health state utility (HSU) score that aims to comprehensively incorporate the biopsychosocial model of health and apply favorable psychometric properties from the descriptive PROMIS system to HSU measurements. However, minimal evidence concerning comparisons to the EQ-5D-3L and the PROPr's capability to differentiate clinical severity are available. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the PROPr to the EQ-5D-3L in terms of scale agreement, ceiling/floor effects, distribution, construct validity, discriminatory power, and relative efficiency (RE) in terms of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for patients with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

We used intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots to compare the PROPr and EQ-5D-3L with regared to scale agreement in a cross-sectional routine sample of LBP patients. For distribution, we used the Pearson's coefficient for skewness and for ceiling/floor effects, a 15%-top/bottom threshold. For convergent validity, we used Pearson's correlation coefficients. For known-groups validity, we applied a linear regression with interaction terms (predictors sex, age, and ODI level) and an analysis of variance (ANOVA). For discriminatory power, we calculated the effect size (ES) using Cohen's d and the ratio of the area under the receiver-operating characteristics curves (AUROC-ratio = AUROCPROPr/AUROCEQ-5D-3L). RE was measured using the ratio of F-values (RE = FPROPr/FEQ-5D-3L).

RESULTS

Of 218 LBP patients, 50.0% were female and the mean age was 61.8 years. The mean PROPr (0.20, 95%CI: 0.18; 0.22) and EQ-5D-3L scores (0.55, 95%CI: 0.51; 0.58) showed low agreement (d = 0.35, p < 0.001; ICC 0.27, 95%CI: -0.09; 0.59). The PROPr's distribution was positively skewed, whereas the EQ-5D-3L's was negative. Neither tool showed ceiling/floor effects, but all EQ-5D-3L dimensions did. Pearson correlation was r = 0.66 (95%CI: 0.58; 0.73). Differences were invariant to sex and age but not to ODI severity: ESEQ-5D-3L > ESPROPr and RE < 1 in higher ODI severity; ESEQ-5D-3L < ESPROPr and RE > 1 in lower ODI severity. AUROC-ratios did not show significant differences in terms of ODI severity.

CONCLUSIONS

All PROPr and EQ-5D-3L biopsychosocial dimensions of health showed impairment in LPB patients. The capability of EQ-5D-3L and PROPr to differentiate ODI levels depends on ODI severity. Joint application of both tools may provide additional information.

A Direct Comparison of the Measurement Properties of EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29+2 and PROMIS Global Health Instruments and EQ-5D-5L and PROPr Utilities in a General Population Sample

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare measurement properties of the 5-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and 2 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) short forms, PROMIS-29+2 and PROMIS Global Health (PROMIS-GH-10), and of EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS-preference scoring system (PROPr) utilities.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a general population sample in Hungary (N = 1631). We compared the following measurement properties at the level of items, domains, and utilities, the latter using corresponding US value sets: ceiling and floor, informativity (Shannon's indices), agreement, convergent, and known-group validity. For the analyses, PROMIS items/domains were matched to EQ-5D-5L domains that cover similar concepts of health.

RESULTS

The majority of PROMIS items showed enhanced distributional characteristics, including lower ceilings and higher informativity than the EQ-5D-5L. Good convergent validity was established between EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS domains capturing similar aspects of health. Mean EQ-5D-5L utilities were substantially higher than those of PROPr (0.864 vs 0.535). EQ-5D-5L utilities correlated moderately or strongly with PROPr (r = 0.61), PROMIS-GH-10 physical (r = 0.68), and mental health summary scores (r = 0.53). EQ-5D-5L utilities decreased with age, whereas PROPr utilities slightly increased with age. EQ-5D-5L utilities discriminated significantly better in 12/28 (ratio of F-statistics) and 18/26 (area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve ratio) known groups defined by age, self-perceived health status, and self-reported physician-diagnosed health conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides comparative evidence on the measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29+2, and PROMIS-GH-10 and informs decisions about the choice of instruments in population health surveys for assessment of patients' health and for cost-utility analyses.

Extending the EQ-5D: the case for a complementary set of 4 psycho-social dimensions

OBJECTIVES

The EQ-5D is the most widely applied preference-based health-related quality of life measure. However, concerns have been raised that the existing dimensional structure lacks sufficient components of mental and social aspects of health. This study empirically explored the performance of a coherent set of four psycho-social bolt-ons: Vitality; Sleep; Personal relationships; and Social isolation.

METHODS

Cross-sectional surveys were conducted with online panel members from five countries (Australia, Canada, Norway, UK, US) (total N = 4786). Four bolt-ons were described using terms aligned with EQ nomenclature. Latent structures among all nine dimensions are studied using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The Shorrocks-Shapely decomposition analyses are conducted to illustrate the relative importance of the nine dimensions in explaining two outcome measures for health (EQ-VAS, satisfaction with health) and two for subjective well-being (the hedonic approach of global life satisfaction and an eudemonic item on meaningfulness). Sub-group analyses are performed on older adults (65 +) and socially disadvantaged groups.

RESULTS

Strength of correlations among four bolt-ons ranges from 0.34 to 0.49. As for their correlations with the EQ-5D dimensions, they are generally much less correlated with four physical health dimensions than with mental health dimensions (ranged from 0.21 to 0.50). The EFA identifies two latent factors. When explaining health, Vitality is the most important. When explaining subjective well-being, Social isolation is second most important, after Anxiety/depression.

CONCLUSION

We provide evidence that further complementing the current EQ-5D-5L health state classification system with a coherent set of four bolt-on dimensions that will fill its psycho-social gap.

Health state utility differed systematically in breast cancer patients between the EORTC QLU-C10D and the PROMIS Preference Score

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The EORTC Quality of Life Utility Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) and the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Preference Score (PROPr) are new health state utility (HSU) scores for quality-adjusted life years in cost-effectiveness analyses. Both are expected to measure HSU more comprehensively than existing measures in cancer patients by including cancer-related health domains such as fatigue. The aim of this study is to compare both scores in a sample of breast cancer patients.

METHODS

We collected QLU-C10D and PROPr from 291 patients 90 days after treatment in the outpatient clinic of the breast cancer center at Charité - University Medicine Berlin between June 2018 and April 2021. We assessed both scores' convergent and known-groups validity, agreement, and ceiling and floor effects.

RESULTS

The mean QLU-C10D score [0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.74] and the mean PROPr score (0.43, 95% CI 0.41-0.46) differed systematically (0.28, 95% CI 0.27-0.30) and showed fair agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.57). The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.86). Both scores showed similar discrimination across known groups of age, treatment, cancer stage, marital status, and education. The QLU-C10D showed relevant ceiling effects.

CONCLUSION

QLU-C10D and PROPr measure HSU differently as a result of different utility models. The choice between QLU-C10D and PROPr should be informed by context, population, disease, and treatment.