Crosswalking Four Pain Impact Measures in a Nationally Representative Sample of Adults with Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To generate crosswalk equations and tables for four pain impact measures: the Impact Stratification Score (ISS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and the Pain, Enjoyment of Life and General Activity Scale (PEG). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey assessing demographics and pain impact. Crosswalks were developed using item response theory (IRT) co-calibrations and linear regressions between the ISS, ODI, RMDQ, and PEG. SETTING: Online panel. PARTICIPANTS: Population-based sample of U.S. adults aged 18 and older. Eligibility criteria were reporting currentback pain, not reporting two fake health conditions, and having data for two or more pain measures (N = 1,530; 37% of sample). Crosswalks were developed (n = 1,030) and cross-validated in a sub-sample of 500 participants (n = 125 randomly sampled from each ISS quartile). INTERVENTIONS: Not Applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ISS, ODI, RMDQ, and the PEG. RESULTS: Associations of the ISS with the PEG and ODI met the criteria for IRT co-calibration. Other measure pairs were cross-walked using regression. Associations were strongest between the PEG and the ISS (r = 0.87, Normalized Mean Absolute Error [NMAE] = 0.38) and between the ODI and the ISS (r = 0.85, NMAE = 0.39). Associations were weakest between the PEG and the RMDQ (r = 0.69, R2 = 0.48, NMAE: 0.55-0.58). Regression equations and IRT accounted for between 48% to 64% of the variance (NMAE: 0.38-0.58) in corresponding pain measures in the cross-validation sample. CONCLUSION: The crosswalks between the ISS and common legacy pain measures created in this study of a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults with back pain can be used to estimate one pain impact measure from another. Further evaluation in clinical samples is recommended.

Comparing patient-reported outcomes measurement information system® (PROMIS®)-16 domain scores with the PROMIS-29 and 5-item PROMIS cognitive function scores.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the interpretability of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®)-16 profile domain scores (physical function, ability to participate in social roles and activities, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, pain interference, cognitive function - abilities, and fatigue) compared to the PROMIS-29 scores and a 5-item PROMIS cognitive function score. The study aims to provide insights into using these measures in clinical and research settings. METHODS: Analyses were conducted using data from 4130 adults from a nationally representative, probability-based internet panel between September and October 2022. A subset of 1256 individuals with back pain was followed up at six months. We compared the PROMIS-16 profile with the corresponding domain scores from the PROMIS-29 and a custom five-item cognitive function measure. We evaluated (1) reliability through inter-item correlations within each domain and (2) criterion validity by comparing PROMIS-16 profile with the corresponding longer PROMIS measures: (a) standardized mean differences in domain scores, (b) correlations, and (c) concordance of change (i.e., got worse, stayed the same, got better) among those with back pain from baseline to six months later using the reliable change index. We report the Kappa coefficient of agreement and the frequency and percentage of participants with concordant classifications. RESULTS: Inter-item correlations for the PROMIS-16 domains ranged from 0.65 in cognitive function to 0.92 in pain interference. Standardized mean differences between PROMIS-16 and the scores for the corresponding longer PROMIS domains were minimal (< 0.2). Correlations among the corresponding domain scores ranged from 0.82 for sleep disturbance to 0.98 for pain interference. The percentage of concordance in change groups ranged from 63% for sleep disturbance to 88% for pain interference. Except for sleep disturbance, the change groups derived from the PROMIS-16 showed moderate to substantial agreement with scores estimated from the longer PROMIS measures (Kappa coefficients ≥ 0.41). CONCLUSION: The PROMIS-16 domain scores perform similarly to the longer PROMIS measures and can be interpreted in the same way. This similarity indicates that PROMIS-16 can be useful for research as a brief health-related quality-of-life profile measure.

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System^® (PROMIS^®)-16 Profile assesses eight health-related quality of life domains (physical function, ability to participate in social roles and activities, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, pain interference, cognitive function ­ abilities, and fatigue) using two items per domain. We evaluated the PROMIS-16 profile in a sample drawn from a nationally representative, probability-based internet panel. The study supports the reliability and criterion validity of the PROMIS-16, showing that the domain scores closely align with and have high concordance in change with the PROMIS-29 scores and a custom five-item cognitive function score. The PROMIS-16 has the potential to be a brief health-related quality-of-life profile measure in research and clinical settings.

Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system preference score (PROPr) in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to prior research, our study presents longitudinal comparisons of the EQ-5D-5L and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) preference (PROPr) scores. This fills a gap in the literature, providing a much-needed understanding of these preference-based measures and their applications in healthcare research. Furthermore, our study provides equations to estimate one measure from the other, a tool that can significantly facilitate comparisons across studies. METHODS: We administered a health survey to 4,098 KnowledgePanel® members living in the United States. A subset of 1,256 (82% response rate) with back pain also completed the six-month follow-up survey. We then conducted thorough cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of the two measures, including product-moment correlations between scores, associations with demographic variables, and health conditions. To estimate one measure from the other, we used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with the baseline data from the general population. RESULTS: The correlation between the EQ-5D-5L and PROPr scores was 0.69, but the intraclass correlation was only 0.34 because the PROPr had lower (less positive) mean scores on the 0 (dead) to 1 (perfect health) continuum than the EQ-5D-5L. The associations between the two preference measures and demographic variables were similar at baseline. The product-moment correlation between unstandardized beta coefficients for each preference measure regressed on 22 health conditions was 0.86, reflecting similar patterns of unique associations. Correlations of change from baseline to 6 months in the two measures with retrospective perceptions of change were similar. Adjusted variance explained in OLS regressions predicting one measure from the other was 48%. On average, the predicted values were within a half-standard deviation of the observed EQ-5D-5L and PROPr scores. The beta-binomial regression model slightly improved over the OLS model in predicting the EQ-5D-5L from the PROPr but was equivalent to the OLS model in predicting the PROPr. CONCLUSION: Despite substantial mean differences, the EQ-5D-5L and PROPr have similar cross-sectional and longitudinal associations with other variables. We provide the OLS regression equations for use in cost-effectiveness research and meta-analyses. Future studies are needed to compare these measures with different conditions and interventions to provide more information on their relative validity.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.