Patterns of Social Needs Predict Quality-of-Life and Healthcare Utilization Outcomes in Patients from a Large Hospital System.

BACKGROUND: Unmet social needs (SNs) often coexist in distinct patterns within specific population subgroups, yet these patterns are understudied. OBJECTIVE: To identify patterns of social needs (PSNs) and characterize their associations with health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and healthcare utilization (HCU). DESIGN: Observational study using data on SNs screening, HRQoL (i.e., low mental and physical health), and 90-day HCU (i.e., emergency visits and hospital admission). Among patients with any SNs, latent class analysis was conducted to identify unique PSNs. For all patients and by race and age subgroups, compared with no SNs, we calculated the risks of poor HRQoL and time to first HCU following SNs screening for each PSN. PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing SNs screening at the Mass General Brigham healthcare system in Massachusetts, United States, between March 2018 and January 2023. MAIN MEASURES: SNs included: education, employment, family care, food, housing, medication, transportation, and ability to pay for household utilities. HRQoL was assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10. KEY RESULTS: Six unique PSNs were identified: "high number of social needs," "food and utility access," "employment needs," "interested in education," "housing instability," and "transportation barriers." In 14,230 patients with HRQoL data, PSNs increased the risks of poor mental health, with risk ratios ranging from 1.07(95%CI:1.01-1.13) to 1.80(95%CI:1.74-1.86). Analysis of poor physical health yielded similar findings, except that the "interested in education" showed a mild protective effect (0.97[95%CI:0.94-1.00]). In 105,110 patients, PSNs increased the risk of 90-day HCU, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.09(95%CI:0.99-1.21) to 1.70(95%CI:1.52-1.90). Findings were generally consistent in subgroup analyses by race and age. CONCLUSIONS: Certain SNs coexist in distinct patterns and result in poorer HRQoL and more HCU. Understanding PSNs allows policymakers, public health practitioners, and social workers to identify at-risk patients and implement integrated, system-wide, and community-based interventions.

Mitigation of Effect Modification by Psychological Status in Patients with Hearing Loss.

Importance: Although patient-reported outcomes provide valuable insights, these subjective data may not align with objective test results. Hearing loss is a pervasive problem, such that concordance between subjective perceptions of hearing ability and objective audiogram assessments would be beneficial. Objectives: To determine (1) whether psychological status is an effect modifier of the association between subjective patient reports of hearing ability and objective audiometry results, and (2) whether any effect modification observed in standard static questionnaires would be either mitigated or exacerbated by adaptive testing based on Item Response Theory analyses. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study at a tertiary care center and community-based practice included consecutive adults who presented with queries related to hearing loss. Participants were recruited and enrolled and data analyses occurred from 2022 to 2024. Exposures: Participants prospectively reported their hearing-specific abilities through either a standard static or adaptive version of the Inner Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (EAR) scale, alongside validated measures of their mental health and audiometry. Word recognition scores (WRS) and pure tone averages (PTA) were used to analyze audiometric testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between subjective Inner EAR results and audiometry was evaluated. Stratified analyses were used to assess for effect modification by psychological status. The results of standard static and adaptive testing were compared. Results: In this study of 395 patients (mean [range] age, 55.9 [18-89] years; 210 [53.2%] female), standard static Inner EAR mean scores were appropriately higher in patients with higher (better) WRS (50.7, 95% CI, 46.4-54.9), compared with patients with lower (worse) WRS (34.7, 95% CI, 24.3-45.1). However, among patients with worse mental health, there was no association between standard static Inner EAR scores and WRS. In contrast, adaptive Inner EAR mean scores were significantly higher for those with better WRS, regardless of mental health status. Thus, effect modification was observed in standard static assessments, whereas adaptive testing remained durably associated with audiometry, regardless of mental health. Conclusions and Relevance: Psychological status was an effect modifier of the association between standard Inner EAR scale scores and audiometry, with a positive association observed only in those with better mental health. Adaptive testing scores, however, remained significantly associated with audiometry, even when mental status was worse. Adaptive testing may stabilize the association between subjective and objective hearing outcomes.

Selecting patient-reported outcome measures: "what" and "for whom".

Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are becoming more widely implemented across health care for important reasons. However, with thousands of PROMs available and the science of psychometrics becoming more widely applied in health measurement, choosing the right ones to implement can be puzzling. This article provides a framework of the different types of PROMs by organizing them into 4 categories based upon "what" is being measured and "from whom" the questions are asked: (1) condition-specific and domain-specific, (2) condition-specific and global, (3) universal and global, and (4) universal and domain-specific. We delve deeper into each category with clinical examples. This framework can empower health care leaders and policymakers to make more informed decisions when selecting the best PROMs to implement, ensuring PROMs deliver on their potential to promote high quality, patient-centered care.

The PROMIS-16 reproduces the PROMIS-29 physical and mental health summary scores accurately in a probability-based internet panel.

PURPOSE: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS)-16 assesses the same multi-item domains but does not include the pain intensity item in the PROMIS-29. We evaluate how well physical and mental health summary scores estimated from the PROMIS-16 reproduce those estimated using the PROMIS-29. METHODS: An evaluation of data collected from 4130 respondents from the KnowledgePanel. Analyses include confirmatory factor analysis to assess physical and mental health latent variables based on PROMIS-16 scores, reliability estimates for the PROMIS measures, mean differences and correlations of scores estimated by the PROMIS-16 with those estimated by the PROMIS-29, and associations between differences in corresponding PROMIS-16 and PROMIS-29 scores by sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: A two-factor (physical and mental health) model adequately fits the PROMIS-16 scores. Reliability estimates for the PROMIS-16 measures were slightly lower than for the PROMIS-29 measures. There were minimal differences between PROMIS physical and mental health summary scores estimated using the PROMIS-16 or the PROMIS-29. PROMIS-16 and PROMIS-29 score differences by sociodemographic characteristics were small. Using the PROMIS pain intensity item when scoring the PROMIS-16 produced similar estimates of physical and mental health summary scores. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS-16 provides similar estimates of the PROMIS-29 physical and mental health summary scores. The high reliability of these scores indicates they are accurate enough for use with individual patients.

Health system implementation of the PROMIS Cognitive Function Screener in the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit: framing as abilities versus concerns.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive assessment is a required component of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV). In this prospective study, we evaluated acceptability and usefulness of a patient-reported outcome measure (the PROMIS® Cognitive Function Screener, or PRO-CS) to screen for cognitive impairment during the AWV. We compared two versions of the PRO-CS: Abilities and Concerns. METHODS: We developed PRO-CS Abilities and PRO-CS Concerns using items from the PROMIS Cognitive Function item banks. We partnered with a large health system in Pennsylvania to implement an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated version of the 4-item PRO-CS into their AWV workflow. PRO-CS Abilities was implemented in June 2022 and then replaced with PRO-CS Concerns in October 2022. We used EHR data to evaluate scores on Abilities versus Concerns and their association with patient characteristics. We gathered feedback from providers on experiences with the PRO-CS and conducted cognitive interviews with patients to evaluate their preferences for Abilities versus Concerns. RESULTS: Between June 2022 and January 2023, 3,088 patients completed PRO-CS Abilities and 2,614 patients completed PRO-CS Concerns. Mean T-scores for Abilities (54.8) were slightly higher (indicating better cognition) than for Concerns (52.6). 10% of scores on Abilities and 13% of scores on Concerns indicated concern for cognitive impairment (T-score < 45). Both Abilities and Concerns were associated with clinical characteristics as hypothesized, with lower scores for patients with cognitive impairment diagnoses and those requiring assistance with instrumental activities of daily living. Abilities and Concerns had similar negative correlations with depression (r= -0.31 versus r= -0.33) and anxiety (r= -0.28 for both), while Abilities had a slightly stronger positive correlation with self-rated health (r = 0.34 versus r = 0.28). In interviews, providers commented that the PRO-CS could be useful to facilitate conversations about cognition, though several providers noted potential limitations of patient self-report. Feedback from patients indicated a preference for PRO-CS Concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest potential utility of the PRO-CS for cognitive screening in the Medicare AWV. PRO-CS Abilities and Concerns had similar associations with patient clinical characteristics, but the Concerns version was more acceptable to patients.

Patient-reported outcome measures for primary hyperparathyroidism: a systematic review of measurement properties.

BACKGROUND: The quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess the outcomes of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT), a common endocrine disorder that can negatively affect patients' health-related quality of life due to chronic symptoms, has not been rigorously examined. This systematic review aimed to summarize and evaluate evidence on the measurement properties of PROMs used in adult patients with PHPT, and to provide recommendations for appropriate measure selection. METHODS: After PROSPERO registration (CRD42023438287), Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Trials were searched for full-text articles in English investigating PROM development, pilot studies, or evaluation of at least one PROM measurement property in adult patients with any clinical form of PHPT. Two reviewers independently identified studies for inclusion and conducted the review following the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Methodology to assess risk of bias, evaluate the quality of measurement properties, and grade the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: From 4989 records, nine PROM development or validation studies were identified for three PROMs: the SF-36, PAS, and PHPQoL. Though the PAS demonstrated sufficient test-retest reliability and convergent validity, and the PHPQoL sufficient test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and responsiveness, the certainty of evidence was low-to-very low due to risk of bias. All three PROMs lacked sufficient evidence for content validity in patients with PHPT. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon the available evidence, the SF-36, PAS, and PHPQoL cannot currently be recommended for use in research or clinical care, raising important questions about the conclusions of studies using these PROMs. Further validation studies or the development of more relevant PROMs with strong measurement properties for this patient population are needed.

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool to assess symptom burden in decompensated cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: While there is a growing need for interventions addressing symptom burden in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (DC), the lack of validated symptom assessment tools is a critical barrier. We investigated the psychometric properties of the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) in a longitudinal cohort of patients with DC. METHODS: Adult outpatients with DC were prospectively recruited from a liver transplant center and completed ESAS-r at baseline and week 12. We examined reliability, floor/ceiling effects, structural validity, and known-groups validity. We examined the convergent and predictive validity of ESAS-r with health-related quality of life using the Short Form Liver Disease Quality of Life (SF-LDQOL) and responsiveness to changes in anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 from baseline to week 12. RESULTS: From August 2018 to September 2022, 218 patients (9% Child-Pugh A, 59% Child-Pugh B, and 32% Child-Pugh C) were prospectively recruited and completed the ESAS-r, SF-LDQOL, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at baseline and week 12 (n = 135). ESAS-r had strong reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.86), structural validity (comparative fit index 0.95), known-groups validity (Child-Pugh A: 25.1 vs. B: 37.5 vs. C: 41.4, p = 0.006), and convergent validity (r = -0.67 with SF-LDQOL). Floor effects were 9% and ceiling effects were 0.5%. Changes in ESAS-r scores from baseline to week 12 significantly predicted changes in SF-LDQOL (ß = -0.36, p < 0.001), accounting for 30% of the variation. ESAS-r was strongly responsive to clinically meaningful changes in SF-LDQOL, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. CONCLUSIONS: ESAS-r is a reliable, valid, and responsive tool for assessing symptom burden in patients with DC and can predict changes in health-related quality of life. Future directions include its implementation as a key outcome measure in cirrhosis care and clinical trials.

Use of patient-reported outcome measures after breast reconstruction in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly administered in high-income countries to monitor health-related quality of life of breast cancer patients undergoing breast reconstruction. Although low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face a disproportionate burden of breast cancer, little is known about the use of PROMs in LMICs. This scoping review aims to examine the use of PROMs after post-mastectomy breast reconstruction among patients with breast cancer in LMICs. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched in August 2022 for English-language studies using PROMs after breast reconstruction among patients with breast cancer in LMICs. Study screening and data extraction were completed. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: The search produced 1024 unique studies, 33 of which met inclusion criteria. Most were observational (48.5%) or retrospective (33.3%) studies. Studies were conducted in only 10 LMICs, with 60.5% in China and Brazil and none in low-income countries. Most were conducted in urban settings (84.8%) and outpatient clinics (57.6%), with 63.6% incorporating breast-specific PROMs and 33.3% including breast reconstruction-specific PROMs. Less than half (45.5%) used PROMs explicitly validated for their populations of interest. Only 21.2% reported PROM response rates, ranging from 43.1 to 96.9%. Barriers and facilitators of PROM use were infrequently noted. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of PROM collection and use in providing patient-centered care, it continues to be limited in middle-income countries and is not evident in low-income countries after breast reconstruction. Further research is necessary to determine effective methods to address the challenges of PROM use in LMICs.

Development and Validation of The Activity-Based Checks (ABCs) of Pain: A Functional Pain Scale.

The Activity-Based-Checks of Pain (ABCs) is a pain assessment tool incorporating activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living. Unlike widely used pain scales which are oftentimes unidimensional and highly subjective, the ABCs was designed to focus on function capabilities and limitations of patients due to pain. This study sought out to validate the factorial structure of the ABCs and assess its use in participants with chronic pain. Participants were recruited in two phases from Prolific - an online service designed to identify research participant recruitment based on study criteria. Phase one optimized the design of the ABCs, with 297 subjects selecting their preferred icon for each function and rating its understandability. The most preferred and understandable icons were then used in phase two, where 304 chronic pain participants completed the ABCs, PROMIS-29, additional PROMIS items that were analogous to the ABCs functions but not represented in the PROMIS-29, and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Data was analyzed using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis demonstrating four factor loadings: multi-planal activities, sitting/hip flexor pain, walking/ambulation, and pain interference with lightweight unilateral activities. High internal consistency was demonstrated with all four factor loadings. Correlations between items in the ABCs, PROMIS, and BPI resulted in moderate to strong correlations demonstrating strong evidence for the validity of the ABCs as a functional pain assessment tool.

Development of an ultra-short measure of eight domains of health-related quality of life for research and clinical care: the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system® PROMIS®-16 profile.

PURPOSE: We describe development of a short health-related quality of life measure, the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system® (PROMIS®)-16 Profile, which generates domain-specific scores for physical function, ability to participate in social roles and activities, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, pain interference, cognitive function, and fatigue. METHODS: An empirical evaluation of 50 candidate PROMIS items and item pairs was conducted using data from a sample of 5775 respondents from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Results and item response theory information curves for a subset of item pairs were presented and discussed in a stakeholder meeting to narrow the candidate item sets. A survey of the stakeholders and 124 MTurk adults was conducted to solicit preferences among remaining candidate items and finalize the measure. RESULTS: Empirical evaluation showed minimal differences in basic descriptive statistics (e.g., means, correlations) and associations with the PROMIS-29 + 2 Profile, thus item pairs were further considered primarily based on item properties and content. Stakeholders discussed and identified subsets of candidate item pairs for six domains, and final item pairs were agreed upon for two domains. Final items were selected based on stakeholder and MTurk-respondent preferences. The PROMIS-16 profile generates eight domain scores with strong psychometric properties. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS-16 Profile provides an attractive brief measure of eight distinct domains of health-related quality of life, representing an ideal screening tool for clinical care, which can help clinicians quickly identify distinct areas of concern that may require further assessment and follow-up. Further research is needed to confirm and extend these findings.

Mapping of the PROMIS global health measure to the PROPr in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System (PROMIS®) global health items (global-10) yield physical and mental health scale scores and the PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) scoring system estimated from PROMIS domain scores (e.g., PROMIS-29 + 2) produces a single score anchored by 0 (dead or as bad as being dead) to 1 (full health). A link between the PROMIS global-10 and the PROPr is needed. METHODS: The PROMIS-29 + 2 and the PROMIS global-10 were administered to 4102 adults in the Ipsos KnowledgePanel in 2022. The median age was 52 (range 18-94), 50% were female, 70% were non-Hispanic White, and 64% were married or living with a partner. The highest level of education completed for 26% of the sample was a high school degree or general education diploma and 44% worked full-time. We estimated correlations of the PROPr with the PROMIS global health items and the global physical and mental health scales. We examined the adjusted R2 and estimated correlations between predicted and observed PROPr scores. RESULTS: Product-moment correlations between the PROMIS global health items and the PROPr ranged from 0.50 to 0.63. The PROMIS global physical health and mental health scale scores correlated 0.74 and 0.60, respectively, with the PROPr. The adjusted R2 in the regression of the PROPr on the PROMIS global health items was 64%. The equated PROPr preference scores correlated (product-moment) 0.80 (n = 4043; p < 0.0001) with the observed PROPr preference scores, and the intra-class correlation (two-way random effects model) was 0.80. The normalized mean absolute error (NMAE) was 0.45 (SD = 0.43). The adjusted R2 in the OLS regression of the PROPr on the PROMIS global health scales was 59%. The equated PROPr preference scores correlated (product-moment) was 0.77 (n = 4046; p < 0.0001) with the observed PROPr preference scores, and the intra-class correlation was 0.77. The NMAE was 0.49 (SD = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Regression equations provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the PROPr preference-based score from the PROMIS global health items or scales for group-level comparisons. These estimates facilitate cost-effectiveness research and meta-analyses. The estimated PROPr scores are not accurate enough for individual-level applications. Future evaluations of the prediction equations are needed.

How Well Do Seven Self-Report Measures Represent Underlying Back Pain Impact?

BACKGROUND: The extent to which different measures of back pain impact represent an underlying common factor has implications for decisions about which one to use in studies of pain management and estimating one score from others. AIMS: To determine if different self-report back pain impact measures represent an underlying pain latent variable and estimate associations with it. METHOD: Seven pain impact measures completed by Amazon Mechanical Turk adults are used to estimate internal consistency reliability and associations: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), short form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (OMPQ), Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Tool, the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) disability score, PEG (Pain intensity, interference with Enjoyment of life, interference with General activity), and Impact Stratification Score (ISS). RESULTS: The sample of 1,874 adults with back pain had an average age of 41 and 52% were female. Sixteen percent were Hispanic, 7% non-Hispanic Black, 5% non-Hispanic Asian, and 71% non-Hispanic White. Internal consistency reliability estimates ranged from 0.710 (OMPQ) to 0.923 (GCPS). Correlations among the measures ranged from 0.609 (RMDQ with OMPQ) to 0.812 (PEG with GCPS). Standardized factor loadings on the pain latent variable ranged from 0.782 (RMDQ) to 0.870 (ISS). CONCLUSIONS: Scores of each measure can be estimated from the others for use in research.

Social Determinants of Health Needs and Health-related Quality of Life Among Surgical Patients: A Retrospective Analysis of 8512 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between social determinants of health (SDOH) needs and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among surgical patients. BACKGROUND: Despite the profound impact of SDOH on health outcomes, studies examining the effect of SDOH needs on HRQOL among surgical patients are limited. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using responses from the SDOH needs assessment and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems Global Health instrument of adults seen in surgical clinics at a single institution. Patient characteristics including socioeconomic status (insurance type, education level, and employment status) were extracted. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of global health scores. RESULTS: A total of 8512 surgical patients (mean age: 55.6±15.8 years) were included. 25.2% of patients reported one or more SDOH needs. The likelihood of reporting at least one SDOH need varied by patient characteristics and socioeconomic status variables. In fully adjusted regression models, food insecurity [odds ratio (OR), 1.53; 95% CI, 1.38-1.70 and OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.22-1.81, respectively], housing instability (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.43 and OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70, respectively) lack of transportation (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27-1.68 and OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.57, respectively), and unmet medication needs (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.52 and OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.28-2.03, respectively) were independent predictors of poor physical and mental health. CONCLUSIONS: SDOH needs are independent predictors of poor patient-reported physical and mental health among surgical patients. Assessing and addressing SDOH needs should be prioritized in health care settings and by policymakers to improve HRQOL.

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®)-29 and PROMIS global physical and mental health scores.

PURPOSE: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System (PROMIS®): includes the PROMIS-29 physical and mental health summary and the PROMIS global physical and mental health scores. It is unknown how these scores coincide with one another. This study examines whether the scores yield similar or different information. METHODS: The PROMIS-29 and the PROMIS global health items were administered to 5804 adults from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) in 2021-2022 and to 4060 adults in the Ipsos KnowledgePanel (KP) in 2022. RESULTS: The median age of those in MTurk (KP) was 36 (54) and 53% (50%) were male. Mean T-scores on the PROMIS-29 and PROMIS global physical health scales were similar, but PROMIS global mental health was 3-4 points lower than the PROMIS-29 mental health summary score. Product-moment correlations ranged from 0.69 to 0.81 between the PROMIS-29 physical health and PROMIS global physical health scales and 0.56-0.69 between the mental health scales. Multi-trait multimethod analyses indicated that only a small proportion of the correlations between the two methods of measuring mental health were significantly more highly correlated with one another than correlations between physical and mental health. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS-29 and PROMIS global mental health scales provide different information and, therefore, study conclusions may vary depending on which measure is used. Interpretation of results needs to consider that the PROMIS-29 mental health scale is a weighted combination of specific domains while the PROMIS global mental health scale is based on general mental health perceptions. Further comparisons of methods of assessing mental health are needed.

Feasibility of implementing patient-reported outcome measures into routine breast cancer care delivery using a novel collection and reporting platform.

Objectives: imPROVE is a new Health Information Technology platform that enables systematic patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) collection through a mobile phone application. The purpose of this study is to describe our initial experience and approach to implementing imPROVE among breast cancer patients treated in breast and plastic surgery clinics. Materials and Methods: We describe our initial implementation in 4 phases between June 2021 and February 2022: preimplementation, followed by 3 consecutive implementation periods (P1, P2, P3). The Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies statement guided this study. Iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles supported implementation, and success was evaluated using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. Results: Qualitative interviews conducted during the preimplementation phase elicited 4 perceived implementation barriers. Further feedback collected during each phase of implementation resulted in the development of brochures, posters in clinic spaces, and scripts for clinic staff to streamline discussions with patients, and the resolution of technical issues concerning patient login capabilities, such as compatibility with cell phone software and barriers to downloading imPROVE. Feedback also generated ideas for facilitating provider interpretation of PROM results. By the end of P3, 2961 patients were eligible, 1375 (46.4%) downloaded imPROVE, and 1070 (36.1% of those eligible, 78% of those who downloaded) completed at least 1 PROM. Discussion and Conclusion: Implementation efforts across 2 surgical departments at 2 academic teaching hospitals enabled collaboration across clinical specialties and longitudinal PROM reporting for patients receiving breast cancer care; the implementation effort also highlighted patient difficulties with mobile app-based PROM collection, particularly around initial engagement.

Classifying patients with non-specific chronic low back pain using the impact stratification score in an online convenience sample.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the National Institute of Health Pain Consortium's research task force (RTF) on research standards for chronic low back pain (CLBP) proposed the Impact Stratification Score (ISS) as a patient-reported outcome measure that could stratify patients by the impact CLBP has on their lives. This work compares three newly developed ISS-based classifications to the RTF's original to provide an optimal recommendation. METHODS: The online sample included 1226 individuals from Amazon's Mechanical Turk who indicated having non-specific CLBP, average age of 40, 49% female, and 67% White. Participants completed the PROMIS-29 v2.1 profile survey that contains the 9 ISS items as well the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS). Other items included high-impact chronic pain; not working due to health problems; overall health; and number of healthcare visits for back pain in the past 6 months. Three new classifications were created using quartiles (Classification 2), latent profile analysis (Classification 3), and one modeled after the GCPS (Classification 4). Classifications were subsequently compared to the RTF-proposed classification (Classification 1) on several concurrent and prognostic criteria. RESULTS: Classification 1 had three CLBP severity groups, four in Classification 2, three in Classification 3, and four in Classification 4. All novel classifications improved upon the original. Classification 2 performed best at minimizing the classification of those with negative outcomes into the lowest severity groups at baseline (e.g., 11% with RMDQ ≥ 7) and 6 months (e.g., 8.2% had fair/poor health). Classification 4 performed best at maximizing classification of those with negative outcomes into the most severe group concurrently (e.g., 100% had GCPS grade ≥ 2) and at 6 months (e.g., 100% with RMDQ ≥ 7). CONCLUSIONS: We developed three ISS-based classification schemes and tested them against several outcomes. All three improved upon the original scheme. While appearing more optimal than other classifications in the lowest severity groups, Classification 2 presents some considerations and limitations. Given that Classification 4 was an improvement at the lowest end of severity and was the best at the highest end, it is our tentative recommendation that this approach be adopted to classify individuals with non-specific CLBP.

Electronic health record (EHR)-based PROMIS measures among neurology clinic decedents and survivors: a retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: In addition to their standard use to assess real-time symptom burden, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), measures offer a potential opportunity to understand when patients are experiencing meaningful clinical decline. If PROs can be used to assess decline, such information can be used for informing medical decision making and determining patient-centered treatment pathways. We sought to use clinically implemented PROMIS measures to retrospectively characterize the final PROMIS report among all patients who completed at least one PROMIS assessment from December 2017-March 2020 in one large health system, stratified by decedents vs. survivors. We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of decedents (N = 1,499) who received care from outpatient neurology clinical practice within a single, large health system as part of usual care. We also compared decedents to survivors (360 + days before death; N = 49,602) on PROMIS domains and PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score, along with demographics and clinical characteristics. We used electronic health record (EHR) data with built-in PROMIS measures. Linear regressions assessed differences in PROMIS domains and aggregate PROPr score by days before death of the final PROMIS completion for each patient. RESULTS: Among decedents in our sample, in multivariable regression, only fatigue (range 54.48-59.38, p < 0.0029) and physical function (range 33.22-38.38, p < 0.0001) demonstrated clinically meaningful differences across time before death. The overall PROPr score also demonstrated statistically significant difference comparing survivors (0.19) to PROPr scores obtained 0-29 days before death (0.29, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although clinic completion of PROMIS measures was near universal, very few patients had more than one instance of PROMIS measures reported, limiting longitudinal analyses. Therefore, patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice may not yet be robust enough for incorporation in prediction models and assessment of trajectories of decline, as evidenced in these specialty clinics in one health system. PROMIS measures can be used to effectively identify symptoms and needs in real time, and robust incorporation into EHRs can improve patient-level outcomes, but further work is needed for them to offer meaningful inputs for defining patient trajectories near the end of life. Assessing symptom burden provides an opportunity to understand clinical decline, particularly as people approach the end of life. We sought to understand whether symptoms reported by patients can be used to assess decline in health. Such information can inform decision-making about care and treatments. Of eight symptoms that we assessed, patient reports of fatigue and physical function were associated with clinical decline, as was an overall score of symptom burden. Because few symptoms were associated with decline, patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice may not yet be robust enough for incorporation in prediction models and assessment of trajectories of decline.

Effects of Excluding Those Who Report Having "Syndomitis" or "Chekalism" on Data Quality: Longitudinal Health Survey of a Sample From Amazon's Mechanical Turk.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have implemented multiple approaches to increase data quality from existing web-based panels such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). OBJECTIVE: This study extends prior work by examining improvements in data quality and effects on mean estimates of health status by excluding respondents who endorse 1 or both of 2 fake health conditions ("Syndomitis" and "Chekalism"). METHODS: Survey data were collected in 2021 at baseline and 3 months later from MTurk study participants, aged 18 years or older, with an internet protocol address in the United States, and who had completed a minimum of 500 previous MTurk "human intelligence tasks." We included questions about demographic characteristics, health conditions (including the 2 fake conditions), and the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29+2 (version 2.1) preference-based score survey. The 3-month follow-up survey was only administered to those who reported having back pain and did not endorse a fake condition at baseline. RESULTS: In total, 15% (996/6832) of the sample endorsed at least 1 of the 2 fake conditions at baseline. Those who endorsed a fake condition at baseline were more likely to identify as male, non-White, younger, report more health conditions, and take longer to complete the survey than those who did not endorse a fake condition. They also had substantially lower internal consistency reliability on the PROMIS-29+2 scales than those who did not endorse a fake condition: physical function (0.69 vs 0.89), pain interference (0.80 vs 0.94), fatigue (0.80 vs 0.92), depression (0.78 vs 0.92), anxiety (0.78 vs 0.90), sleep disturbance (-0.27 vs 0.84), ability to participate in social roles and activities (0.77 vs 0.92), and cognitive function (0.65 vs 0.77). The lack of reliability of the sleep disturbance scale for those endorsing a fake condition was because it includes both positively and negatively worded items. Those who reported a fake condition reported significantly worse self-reported health scores (except for sleep disturbance) than those who did not endorse a fake condition. Excluding those who endorsed a fake condition improved the overall mean PROMIS-29+2 (version 2.1) T-scores by 1-2 points and the PROMIS preference-based score by 0.04. Although they did not endorse a fake condition at baseline, 6% (n=59) of them endorsed at least 1 of them on the 3-month survey and they had lower PROMIS-29+2 score internal consistency reliability and worse mean scores on the 3-month survey than those who did not report having a fake condition. Based on these results, we estimate that 25% (1708/6832) of the MTurk respondents provided careless or dishonest responses. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that asking about fake health conditions can help to screen out respondents who may be dishonest or careless. We recommend this approach be used routinely in samples of members of MTurk.

Can EAT-10 Become EAT-5? Improving Measurement Efficiency of Dysphagia with Item Response Theory.

OBJECTIVES: To assess: (1) the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) with item response theory (IRT) to determine which individual items provide the most information, (2) the extent to which dysphagia is measured with subsets of items while maintaining precise score estimates, and (3) if 5-item scales have the differing discriminatory ability, as compared to the parent 10-item instrument. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from 2,339 patients who completed the EAT-10 questionnaire during evaluation at a tertiary care otolaryngology clinic were utilized. IRT analyses provided discrimination and location parameters associated with individual questions. Residual item correlations were also assessed for redundant information. Based on these results, three 5-item subsets were further evaluated using item information function curves. Areas under receiver-operator characteristic curves (ROC-AUC) were also calculated to evaluate the discriminatory ability for dysphagia-related clinical diagnoses. RESULTS: Item discrimination parameter estimates ranged from 1.71 to 5.46, with higher values indicating more information. Residual item correlations were determined within item pairs, and location parameters were calculated. Based on these data, in combination with clinical utility, three 5-item subsets were proposed and assessed. ROC-AUC analyses demonstrated no significant difference between the EAT-5-Alpha subset and the original 10-item instrument for discriminating dysphagia as a primary diagnosis (0.88, 0.88). The EAT-5-Clinical subset outperformed the original 10 instruments in ROC-AUC for aspiration. The EAT-5-Range subset was significantly associated with problems with thin liquids. CONCLUSIONS: IRT analyses distinguished three proposed 5-item subsets of the EAT-10 instrument, supporting shorter survey options, while still reflecting the impact of dysphagia without significant loss of discrimination. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 (Diagnostic testing with consistently applied reference standards, partial blinding). Laryngoscope, 133:3327-3333, 2023.