Comparison of the PROMIS Preference Score (PROPr) and EQ-5D-5L Index Value in General Population Samples in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany
Standard
Comparison of the PROMIS Preference Score (PROPr) and EQ-5D-5L Index Value in General Population Samples in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. / Klapproth, Christoph Paul; Sidey-Gibbons, Christopher J; Valderas, José Martinez; Rose, Matthias; Fischer, Felix.
in: VALUE HEALTH, Jahrgang 25, Nr. 5, 05.2022, S. 824-834.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of the PROMIS Preference Score (PROPr) and EQ-5D-5L Index Value in General Population Samples in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany
AU - Klapproth, Christoph Paul
AU - Sidey-Gibbons, Christopher J
AU - Valderas, José Martinez
AU - Rose, Matthias
AU - Fischer, Felix
N1 - Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2022/5
Y1 - 2022/5
N2 - OBJECTIVES: The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Preference score (PROPr) can be used to assess health state utility (HSU) and estimate quality-adjusted life-years in cost-effectiveness analyses. It is based on item response theory and promises to overcome limitations of existing HSU scores such as ceiling effects. The PROPr contains 7 PROMIS domains: cognitive abilities, depression, fatigue, pain, physical function, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. We aimed to compare the PROPr with the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) in terms of psychometric properties using data from 3 countries.METHODS: We collected PROMIS-29 profile and EQ-5D-5L data from 3 general population samples (United Kingdom = 1509, France = 1501, Germany = 1502). Given that cognition is not assessed by the PROMIS-29, it was predicted by the recommended linear regression model. We compared the convergent validity, known-groups construct validity, and ceiling and floor effects of the PROPr and EQ-5D-5L.RESULTS: The mean PROPr (0.48, 0.53, 0.48; P<.01) and EQ-5D-5L scores (0.82, 0.85, 0.83; P<.01) showed significant differences of similar magnitudes (d = 0.34; d = 0.32; d = 0.35; P<.01) across all samples. The differences were invariant to sex, income, occupation, education, and most conditions but not for age. The Pearson correlation coefficients between both scores were r = 0.74, r = 0.69, and r = 0.72. PROPr's ceiling and floor effects both were minor to moderate. The EQ-5D-5L's ceiling (floor) effects were major (negligible).CONCLUSIONS: Both the EQ-5D-5L and the PROPr assessed by the PROMIS-29 show high validity. The PROPr yields considerably lower HSU values than the EQ-5D-5L. Consequences for quality-adjusted life-year measurements should be investigated in future research.
AB - OBJECTIVES: The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Preference score (PROPr) can be used to assess health state utility (HSU) and estimate quality-adjusted life-years in cost-effectiveness analyses. It is based on item response theory and promises to overcome limitations of existing HSU scores such as ceiling effects. The PROPr contains 7 PROMIS domains: cognitive abilities, depression, fatigue, pain, physical function, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. We aimed to compare the PROPr with the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) in terms of psychometric properties using data from 3 countries.METHODS: We collected PROMIS-29 profile and EQ-5D-5L data from 3 general population samples (United Kingdom = 1509, France = 1501, Germany = 1502). Given that cognition is not assessed by the PROMIS-29, it was predicted by the recommended linear regression model. We compared the convergent validity, known-groups construct validity, and ceiling and floor effects of the PROPr and EQ-5D-5L.RESULTS: The mean PROPr (0.48, 0.53, 0.48; P<.01) and EQ-5D-5L scores (0.82, 0.85, 0.83; P<.01) showed significant differences of similar magnitudes (d = 0.34; d = 0.32; d = 0.35; P<.01) across all samples. The differences were invariant to sex, income, occupation, education, and most conditions but not for age. The Pearson correlation coefficients between both scores were r = 0.74, r = 0.69, and r = 0.72. PROPr's ceiling and floor effects both were minor to moderate. The EQ-5D-5L's ceiling (floor) effects were major (negligible).CONCLUSIONS: Both the EQ-5D-5L and the PROPr assessed by the PROMIS-29 show high validity. The PROPr yields considerably lower HSU values than the EQ-5D-5L. Consequences for quality-adjusted life-year measurements should be investigated in future research.
KW - Fatigue
KW - Germany
KW - Humans
KW - Patient Reported Outcome Measures
KW - Psychometrics
KW - Quality of Life/psychology
U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.012
DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.012
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 35500951
VL - 25
SP - 824
EP - 834
JO - VALUE HEALTH
JF - VALUE HEALTH
SN - 1098-3015
IS - 5
ER -
