Measuring fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis - which questionnaire should be used? A Plain Language Summary of Publication.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary explains the findings of a recent study that compared different questionnaires used by doctors to measure levels of fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of the study was to find out which questionnaire doctors should use to measure fatigue in people with MS in the future. Fatigue, which can be described as the overwhelming feeling of tiredness or exhaustion, is a very common symptom of MS. For the majority of people with MS, fatigue is one of the worst symptoms of MS, so it is essential that doctors can measure it accurately. Currently, people with MS are asked to complete questionnaires so that their care team can see the effect of fatigue on their day-to-day lives. There are many questionnaires that are used to measure fatigue in people with MS. It would be valuable to come to an agreement, based on evidence from research like this study, on which questionnaire is the most appropriate for measuring fatigue in both research and healthcare settings. This study compared a questionnaire called the PROMIS® Fatigue (MS) 8a, referred to throughout this summary as the PROMIS® MS Fatigue Short Form, with two of the most commonly used questionnaires: the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS). The questionnaires were compared to see which one should be recommended to doctors for measuring fatigue in people with MS. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: It was found that while all three questionnaires were good, the PROMIS® MS Fatigue Short Form questionnaire was better than the other two questionnaires at showing differences in levels of fatigue between people with MS. The PROMIS® MS Fatigue Short Form was also found to be better than the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) at showing changes in the person with MS's level of fatigue. The PROMIS® MS Fatigue Short Form questionnaire may help people with MS to better communicate challenges with their fatigue to their doctors. WHAT WAS THE MAIN CONCLUSION REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: The study suggests that the PROMIS® MS Fatigue Short Form questionnaire is a helpful tool for doctors and people with MS to measure fatigue.

Empowered Relief, cognitive behavioral therapy, and health education for people with chronic pain: a comparison of outcomes at 6-month Follow-up for a randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: We previously conducted a 3-arm randomized trial (263 adults with chronic low back pain) which compared group-based (1) single-session pain relief skills intervention (Empowered Relief; ER); (2) 8-session cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for chronic back pain; and (3) single-session health and back pain education class (HE). Results suggested non-inferiority of ER vs. CBT at 3 months post-treatment on an array of outcomes. Methods: Here, we tested the durability of treatment effects at 6 months post-treatment. We examined group differences in primary and secondary outcomes at 6 months and the degree to which outcomes eroded or improved from 3-month to 6-month within each treatment group. Results: Empowered Relief remained non-inferior to CBT on most outcomes, whereas both ER and CBT remained superior to HE on most outcomes. Outcome improvements within ER did not decrease significantly from 3-month to 6-month, and indeed ER showed additional 3- to 6-month improvements on pain catastrophizing, pain bothersomeness, and anxiety. Effects of ER at 6 months post-treatment (moderate term outcomes) kept pace with effects reported by participants who underwent 8-session CBT. Conclusions: The maintenance of these absolute levels implies strong stability of ER effects. Results extend to 6 months post-treatment previous findings documenting that ER and CBT exhibit similarly potent effects on outcomes.

Establishing the interpretability and utility of the 4-item BriefPCS.

To reduce the patient burden associated with completing the 13-item Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the 4-item "BriefPCS" was developed. To date, no crosswalk has been developed that associates scores on the BriefPCS with PCS scores. Further, no study has compared the use of BriefPCS and PCS scores in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). We aimed to: (1) establish the interpretability of BriefPCS scores in reference to PCS scores, (2) compare the concurrent validity between the BriefPCS and PCS, and (3) asssess the use of BriefPCS in an RCT. First, we conducted equipercentile linking, created a crosswalk that associated scores of BriefPCS with PCS, and calculated differences between PCS and crosswalked PCS scores. Secondly, we compared Bootstrap correlation coefficients between PCS and self-reported measures of other domains. Lastly, we compared results from an RCT using BriefPCS scores versus PCS scores. Findings indicated that the correlation coefficient estimates with the BriefPCS and PCS scores were not significantly different. BriefPCS and PCS scores had similar ability to detect treatment-related changes. The BriefPCS scores validly, reliably, and accurately distinguish levels of pain catastrophizing. Additionally, the BriefPCS scores are sensitive to changes after behavioral interventions, with less respondent burden compared to the PCS scores.

Lower Quadrant Edema Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Is Reliable, Valid, and Efficient for Patients With Lymphatic and Venous Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The main aims of this study were: (1) to create a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) item bank for measuring the impact of lower quadrant edema (LQE) on physical function using item response theory and (2) to assess reliability, validity, and administration efficiency of LQE PROM scores based on computerized adaptive test (CAT) and the reliability of a 10-item short form (SF). METHODS: This retrospective study included data from patients treated in outpatient rehabilitation clinics for lower quadrant edema who responded to all 30 candidate items at intake. Item response theory model assumptions of unidimensionality, local item independence, item fit, and presence of differential item functioning (DIF) were evaluated. LQE-CAT-generated scores were assessed for reliability, validity, and administration efficiency. LQE-SF-generated scores were assessed for reliability. RESULTS: The total cohort included 4894 patients (mean [SD] age = 65 [14] years; range = 14-89 years). A set of 20 items was selected for the item bank based on support for its unidimensionality and fit to the item response theory model, with reliability estimates greater than 0.92 for CAT and SF administration modes. No items demonstrated DIF with respect to tested variables. After controlling for scores at intake, scores discriminated among multiple patient groups in clinically logical ways with better outcomes observed for patients who were younger with less chronic symptoms and fewer comorbidities. Scores were responsive to change but the effect size was small (0.4). There were negligible floor and ceiling effects. CAT administration of the item bank required an average of 6.1 items (median = 5). Scores correlated highly with full-bank scores (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.98). CONCLUSION: Scores on the LQE PROM were reliable, valid, and efficient for assessing perceived physical function of patients with lower quadrant edema. The LQE, CAT, and SF are suitable for research and routine clinical care. Reasons for the small effect size for change scores should be studied. IMPACT: The newly developed LQE PROM was reliable and valid and offered efficient administration modes for assessing perceived physical function of patients with LQE, both for research and routine clinical care in busy outpatient rehabilitation settings. As an item response theory-based measure, the LQE PROM allows administration of condition-specific functional questions with low response burden for patients. The 10-item LQE-SF offers a feasible alternative administration mode when CAT administration is not available. This study supports a transition to PROMs that are based on modern measurement approaches to achieve the combined benefits of high accuracy and efficiency.

The Stroke Upper and Lower Extremity Physical Function Measures Were Supported for Score Reliability, Validity, and Administration Efficiency for Patients Poststroke.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (1) evaluate the suitability of newly developed items for calibration into 2 item banks for stroke upper extremity (SUE) and stroke lower extremity (SLE) physical function (PF) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and to (2) assess score reliability and validity and PROM administration efficiency based on computerized adaptive testing (CAT). METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal study involving patients poststroke who were treated in outpatient rehabilitation clinics and responded to 28 and 25 region-specific candidate items addressing tasks related to upper or lower extremity PF, respectively, was conducted. Item response theory (IRT) model assumptions of unidimensionality, local independence, item fit, and presence of differential item functioning were evaluated. CAT-generated scores were assessed for reliability, validity, and administration efficiency, and 10-item short forms were assessed for reliability. RESULTS: Cohorts consisted of 2017 patients with stroke involving the upper extremity and 2107 patients with stroke involving the lower extremity (mean age [SD]: SUE = 62 [14] and SLE = 63 [14]; range = 14-89). Two solutions (SUE: 28-item; SLE: 24-item) supported unidimensionality and fit to the IRT model, with reliability estimates >0.93 for all administration modes. No items demonstrated differential item functioning. Scores discriminated among multiple patient groups in clinically logical ways, with better outcomes observed for patients who were younger, were male, had less chronicity, and had fewer comorbidities. The SUE and SLE, respectively, had 1 and 0.3% floor effects and 4.3 and 1.1% ceiling effects. Change score effect sizes were 0.5 (SUE) and 0.6 (SLE). Simulated CAT scores required an average of 6 (SUE) and 5.6 (SLE) items (median = 5). CONCLUSION: The stroke upper extremity and stroke lower extremity PROM scores were reliable, valid, and efficient and had moderate change effect sizes for assessing PF as perceived by patients poststroke with upper and lower extremity impairments. Scores had negligible floor and acceptable ceiling effects. Based on these results, the stroke PROMs are suitable for research and routine clinical practice. IMPACT: As IRT-based measures, these PROMs support clinical practice guideline recommendations for the use of outcome measures in neurologic physical therapy and the administration of condition-specific functional questions with low response burden for patients. The 10-item short forms offer a feasible alternative administration mode when CAT administration is not available.

Patient Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing: Thematic Analysis of Cross-sectional International Data.

Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, advocates and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term in clinical settings and the media. We conducted an international study to investigate patient perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. Open-ended electronic patient and caregiver proxy surveys were promoted internationally by collaborator stakeholders and through social media. 3,521 surveys were received from 47 countries (77.3% from the U.S.). The sample was mainly female (82.1%), with a mean age of 41.62 (SD 12.03) years; 95% reported ongoing pain and pain duration > 10 years (68.4%). Forty-five percent (n = 1,295) had heard of the term pain catastrophizing; 12% (n = 349) reported being described as a 'pain catastrophizer' by a clinician with associated high levels of feeling blamed, judged, and dismissed. We present qualitative thematic data analytics for responses to open-ended questions, with 32% of responses highlighting the problematic nature of the term. We present the patients' perspective on the term pain catastrophizing, its material effect on clinical experiences, and associations with negative gender stereotypes. Use of patient-centered terminology may be important for favorably shaping the social context of patients' experience of pain and pain care. PERSPECTIVE: Our international patient survey found that 45% had heard of the term pain catastrophizing, about one-third spontaneously rated the term as problematic, and 12% reported the term was applied to them with most stating this was a negative experience. Clinician education on patient-centered terminology may improve care and reduce stigma.

A comparison of the measurement properties of the PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a against legacy fatigue questionnaires.

BACKGROUND: Amidst the growing number of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of fatigue being used in multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials and clinics, evidence-based consensus on the most appropriate and generalizable measures across different settings would be beneficial for clinical research and patient care. The objective of this research was to compare the validity and responsiveness of scores from the PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a with those of the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), across US and UK MS populations. METHODS: Two observational studies were performed in MS populations as part of a PRO measure development project, including a cross-sectional study in two tertiary US MS centers (n = 340) and a 96-week longitudinal study in the UK MS Register cohort (n = 352). In post-hoc analyses, we examined  relative validity, based on ability to discriminate across patient groups with different fatigue levels or functional status at baseline (i.e., ANOVA-F PROX ÷ ANOVA-F PROMIS (MS) 8a), and relative responsiveness, based on baseline-to-Week-52 score change (effect sizes) across fatigue or functional status response groups . RESULTS: Mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 44.6 ± 11.3/50.0 ± 9.7; and 72.9%/77.3% were female (US/UK samples). The mean PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a T-score ± SD at baseline was 57.7 ± 10.5/58.9 ± 9.3 (US/UK samples). Compared with the PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a, relative validity (anchor: Global Health Score [GHS] fatigue global question) was 85% for MFIS symptom score, 48% for MFIS total score, and 44% for the FSS. Relative to the FSS, PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a scores were more sensitive to worsening (effect size = -0.43 versus -0.18) as well as improvement (effect size = 0.5 versus 0.2) in fatigue (≥1-point increase/decrease in GHS fatigue global question) over 52 weeks of follow-up. A similar pattern of score changes was observed based on a second anchor. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a scores showed higher responsiveness to fatigue changes than those of the FSS. The PROMIS measure also had higher precision in differentiating levels of fatigue compared to the FSS, the MFIS physical, and MFIS total scores. These differences have practical implications for the application of these questionnaires in both clinical practice and research settings (e.g., sample size estimation in clinical trials).

The validity, responsiveness, and score interpretation of the PROMISnq Physical Function - Multiple Sclerosis 15a short form in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: A valid, sensitive patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure of physical function (PF) for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) would have substantial value in routine care and clinical research. We now describe development of the PROMISnq Short Form v2.0 PF - Multiple Sclerosis 15a [PROMISnq PF(MS)15a] for assessing PF in relapsing and progressive MS. Also, the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the PROMISnq PF(MS)15a is evaluated, minimal important difference (MID) thresholds for score change estimated and a score interpretation guide developed. METHODS: A mixed-methods sequential design was employed. Relevant PF concepts were elicited through semi-structured interviews with people with relapsing MS, and then mapped to the PROMIS PF item bank. Measurement experts integrated results from interviews with people with MS and input from a panel of neurologists to generate a draft short form. Relevance and comprehensiveness of the draft short form were assessed in cognitive debriefing interviews with people with relapsing or progressive MS. Subsequently, item reduction and evaluation of psychometric properties were performed in two observational studies: a cross-sectional study in the US (n = 296), and a 96-week longitudinal study in the UK MS Register cohort (n = 558). The main outcomes and measures are estimates of: known-groups validity, convergent validity, reliability, responsiveness; MID for worsening. RESULTS: Factor analyses supported the unidimensionality of the newly derived 15-item short form. Cronbach's alpha (≥ 0.97) and intraclass correlation coefficient (≥ 0.97) of test-retest scores (5-27 days) indicated strong reliability. Convergent validity was demonstrated by moderate-to-strong correlations with scores on related PRO measures. Scores discriminated among patient groups classified by levels of physical health and other criteria. Score changes of 2.3-2.7 points are proposed as MID criteria for minimal worsening in PF. CONCLUSION: PROMISnq PF(MS)15a demonstrated reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Input from patients and clinicians ensured the content is comprehensive and relevant for people with MS.

Comparing Perceived Pain Impact Between Younger and Older Adults With High Impact Chronic Pain: A Cross-Sectional Qualitative and Quantitative Survey.

High impact chronic pain (HICP) is a recently proposed concept for treatment stratifying patients with chronic pain and monitoring their progress. The goal is to reduce the impact of chronic pain on the individual, their family, and society. The US National Pain Strategy defined HICP as the chronic pain associated with substantial restrictions on participation in work, social, and self-care activities for at least 6 months. To understand the meaning and characteristics of HICP from the younger (<65 years old) and older adults (≥65 years old) with chronic pain, our study examined patients' perceived pain impact between the two age groups. We also characterize the degree of pain impact, assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI), between adults and older adults with HICP. We recruited patients at a tertiary pain clinic. The survey included open-ended questions about pain impact, the Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised to identify patients' meeting criteria for HICP, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) 8-item PI short form (v.8a). A total of 55 younger adults (65.5% women, 72.7% HICP, mean age = 55.0 with SD of 16.2) and 28 older adults (53.6% women, 64.3% HICP, mean age = 72.6 with SD of 5.4) with chronic pain participated in this study. In response to an open-ended question in which participants were asked to list out the areas of major impact pain, those with HICP in the younger group most commonly listed work, social activity, and basic physical activity (e.g., walking and standing); for those in the older group, basic physical activity, instrumental activity of daily living (e.g., housework, grocery shopping), and participating in social or fun activity for older adults with HICP were the most common. A 2 × 2 ANOVA was conducted using age (younger adults vs. older adults) and HICP classification (HICP vs. No HICP). A statistically significant difference was found in the PROMIS-PI T-scores by HICP status (HICP: M = 58.4, SD = 6.3; No HICP: M = 67.8, SD = 6.3), but not by age groups with HICP. In conclusion, perceived pain impacts were qualitatively, but not quantitatively different between younger and older adults with HICP. We discuss limitations and offer recommendations for future research.

Upper Quadrant Edema Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Is Reliable, Valid, and Efficient for Patients With Lymphatic and Venous Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The main aims of this study were to (1) create a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) item bank for measuring the impact of upper quadrant edema (UQE) on physical function by calibrating responses to newly developed items; and (2) assess reliability, validity, and administration efficiency of scores based on computerized adaptive test (CAT) and 10-item short-form (SF) administration modes. METHODS: This was a retrospective study including data from patients treated in outpatient rehabilitation clinics for UQE that responded to all 27 candidate items at intake. Item response theory model assumptions of unidimensionality, local item independence, item fit, and presence of differential item functioning were evaluated. UQE-CAT- and UQE-SF-generated scores were assessed for reliability, validity, and administration efficiency. RESULTS: The total cohort included 3486 patients (mean [SD] age = 61 [13] years; range = 14-89 years). After removing 2 items, a 25-item solution was supported for its unidimensionality and fit to the item response theory model with reliability estimates of more than 0.93 for scores based on both CAT and SF administration modes. No items demonstrated differential item functioning. Scores discriminated among multiple patient groups in clinically logical ways and were moderately responsive to change with negligible floor and acceptable ceiling effects. CAT scores were generated using an average of 5.6 items (median = 5). CONCLUSION: Scores on the UQE PROM were reliable, valid, and efficient for assessing perceived physical function of patients with upper quadrant edema; thus, the measure is suitable for research and routine clinical administration. IMPACT: The newly developed UQE PROM is reliable and valid and offers efficient administration modes for assessing perceived physical function of patients with UQE caused by lymphatic and venous disorders, both for research and routine clinical care in busy outpatient rehabilitation settings. As an item response theory-based measure, the UQE PROM allows administration of condition-specific functional questions with low response burden for patients. This study supports a transition to PROMs that are based on modern measurement approaches to achieve high accuracy and efficiency.

Comparison of a Single-Session Pain Management Skills Intervention With a Single-Session Health Education Intervention and 8 Sessions of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic low back pain (CLBP), the most prevalent chronic pain condition, imparts substantial disability and discomfort. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) reduces the effect of CLBP, but access is limited. Objective: To determine whether a single class in evidence-based pain management skills (empowered relief) is noninferior to 8-session CBT and superior to health education at 3 months after treatment for improving pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, pain interference, and other secondary outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-arm randomized clinical trial collected data from May 24, 2017, to March 3, 2020. Participants included individuals in the community with self-reported CLBP for 6 months or more and an average pain intensity of at least 4 (range, 0-10, with 10 indicating worst pain imaginable). Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches. Interventions: Participants were randomized to (1) empowered relief, (2) health education (matched to empowered relief for duration and format), or (3) 8-session CBT. Self-reported data were collected at baseline, before treatment, and at posttreatment months 1, 2, and 3. Main Outcomes and Measures: Group differences in Pain Catastrophizing Scale scores and secondary outcomes at month 3 after treatment. Pain intensity and pain interference were priority secondary outcomes. Results: A total of 263 participants were included in the analysis (131 women [49.8%], 130 men [49.4%], and 2 other [0.8%]; mean [SD] age, 47.9 [13.8] years) and were randomized into 3 groups: empowered relief (n = 87), CBT (n = 88), and health education (n = 88). Empowered relief was noninferior to CBT for pain catastrophizing scores at 3 months (difference from CBT, 1.39 [97.5% CI, -∞ to 4.24]). Empowered relief and CBT were superior to health education for pain catastrophizing scores (empowered relief difference from health education, -5.90 [95% CI, -8.78 to -3.01; P < .001]; CBT difference from health education, -7.29 [95% CI, -10.20 to -4.38; P < .001]). Pain catastrophizing score reductions for empowered relief and CBT at 3 months after treatment were clinically meaningful (empowered relief, -9.12 [95% CI, -11.6 to -6.67; P < .001]; CBT, -10.94 [95% CI, -13.6 to -8.32; P < .001]; health education, -4.60 [95% CI, -7.18 to -2.01; P = .001]). Between-group comparisons for pain catastrophizing at months 1 to 3 were adjusted for baseline pain catastrophizing scores and used intention-to-treat analysis. Empowered relief was noninferior to CBT for pain intensity and pain interference (priority secondary outcomes), sleep disturbance, pain bothersomeness, pain behavior, depression, and anxiety. Empowered relief was inferior to CBT for physical function. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with CLBP, a single-session pain management class resulted in clinically significant improvements in pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, pain interference, and other secondary outcomes that were noninferior to 8-session CBT at 3 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167086.

Standardizing fatigue measurement in multiple sclerosis: the validity, responsiveness and score interpretation of the PROMIS SF v1.0 - Fatigue (MS) 8a.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is one of the most common and the single most disabling symptom of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, there is a lack of consensus on the most appropriate fatigue measures in clinical practice and research, based upon rigorously validated, generalizable, and publicly available instruments. The objective of this research was to generate additional evidence regarding the validity and applicability of the PROMIS SF v1.0 - Fatigue (MS) 8a, including content validity, reliability, construct validity and responsiveness, as well as to assess minimal important difference (MID) estimates and a score interpretation tool to aide meaningful individual level score interpretation. METHODS: A mixed-methods, sequential design was followed. Cognitive debriefing (CD) interviews (n=29) were performed with MS patients, to assess the relevance and comprehensiveness of the PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a scores. To evaluate the psychometric properties of the PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a, two observational studies were conducted: a cross-sectional study at two US MS centers (n=296), and a 96-week longitudinal study in a UK MS Register cohort (n=384). Main outcomes and measures were estimates of known-groups validity, convergence validity, reliability, and responsiveness, a guide for interpreting PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a T-scores, and anchor-based MID estimates. RESULTS: The CD interviews confirmed the comprehensiveness and relevance of the PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a in assessing MS fatigue. Cronbach's alpha (>0.9) and intra-class correlation coefficient (≥0.9) for test-retest scores at 5-7 days follow-up, supported strong internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Hypothesized differences were found across patient groups in patient reported fatigue and related concepts (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P <0.001). PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a scores were sensitive to bi-directional changes in fatigue (GHS fatigue global question) and physical health (PROMIS GHS GPH), over a 52-week follow-up. Score changes of 3.4-4 points are proposed as MID criteria for minimal improvement or worsening in fatigue. CONCLUSION: This research extends the evidence supporting the content validity and the robust psychometric performance of the PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a across US and UK MS populations. Importantly, data supporting the measure's integration in clinical practice and research, including meaningful score interpretation, are now available.

Enabling patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials, exemplified by cardiovascular trials.

OBJECTIVES: There has been limited success in achieving integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. We describe how stakeholders envision a solution to this challenge. METHODS: Stakeholders from academia, industry, non-profits, insurers, clinicians, and the Food and Drug Administration convened at a Think Tank meeting funded by the Duke Clinical Research Institute to discuss the challenges of incorporating PROs into clinical trials and how to address those challenges. Using examples from cardiovascular trials, this article describes a potential path forward with a focus on applications in the United States. RESULTS: Think Tank members identified one key challenge: a common understanding of the level of evidence that is necessary to support patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trials. Think Tank participants discussed the possibility of creating general evidentiary standards depending upon contextual factors, but such guidelines could not be feasibly developed because many contextual factors are at play. The attendees posited that a more informative approach to PROM evidentiary standards would be to develop validity arguments akin to courtroom briefs, which would emphasize a compelling rationale (interpretation/use argument) to support a PROM within a specific context. Participants envisioned a future in which validity arguments would be publicly available via a repository, which would be indexed by contextual factors, clinical populations, and types of claims. CONCLUSIONS: A publicly available repository would help stakeholders better understand what a community believes constitutes compelling support for a specific PROM in a trial. Our proposed strategy is expected to facilitate the incorporation of PROMs into cardiovascular clinical trials and trials in general.

Customizing CAT Administration of the PROMIS Misuse of Prescription Pain Medication Item Bank for Patients with Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The 22-item PROMIS®-Rx Pain Medication Misuse item bank (Bank-22) imposes a high response burden. This study aimed to characterize the performance of the Bank-22 in a computer adaptive testing (CAT) setting based on varied stopping rules. METHODS: The 22 items were administered to 288 patients. We performed a CAT simulation using default stopping rules (CATPROMIS). In 5 other simulations, a "best health" response rule was added to decrease response burden. This rule stopped CAT administration when a participant selected "never" to a specified number of initial Bank-22 items (2-6 in this study, designated CATAlt2-Alt6). The Bank-22 and 7-item short form (SF-7) scores were compared to scores based on CATPROMIS, and the 5 CAT variations. RESULTS: Bank-22 scores correlated highly with the SF-7 and CATPROMIS, Alt5, Alt6 scores (r=0.87-0.95) and moderately with CATAlt2- Alt4 scores (r=0.63-0.74). In all CAT conditions, the greatest differences with Bank-22 scores were at the lower end of misuse T-scores. The smallest differences with Bank-22 and CATPROMIS scores were observed with CATAlt5 and CATAlt6. Compared to the SF-7, CATAlt5 and CATAlt6 reduced overall response burden by about 42%. Finally, the correlations between PROMIS-Rx Misuse and Anxiety T-scores remained relatively unchanged across the conditions (r=0.31-0.43, Ps < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Applying a stopping rule based on number of initial "best health" responses reduced response burden for respondents with lower levels of misuse. The tradeoff was less measurement precision for those individuals, which could be an acceptable tradeoff when the chief concern is in discriminating higher levels of misuse.

The factor structure and subscale properties of the pain catastrophizing scale: are there differences in the distinctions?

Increasingly, studies have documented the negative impact of pain catastrophizing on health outcomes. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) has been the measure of choice for many of these studies. The PCS provides 3 subscales for measuring pain catastrophizing: rumination, magnification, and helplessness. Factor analytic investigations of these factors have been limited by the sample size and relevance, and results have been inconsistent. No study has directly estimated the added value of subscale scoring of the PCS compared with scoring it as a single measure. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dimensionality of PCS responses in a sample of patients with chronic pain (N = 8370). METHODS: Data were randomly halved, and results were cross-validated. Both traditional factor analysis and traditional factor analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Findings based on common factor analyses and on bifactor analyses supported the essential unidimensionality of PCS responses. In the bifactor analyses, the general factor accounted for 96% of the explained common variance in the modeling sample. After extracting the general factor, helplessness, magnification, and rumination subscales accounted for 7.0%, 0.0%, and 15%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results do not necessarily disconfirm helplessness, magnification, and rumination as clinically meaningful theoretical distinctions. However, the PCS (at least as presently constructed) fails to discriminate these distinctions. Joint efforts in theory and measurement science could illuminate the role that posited "kinds" of pain catastrophizing play in individuals' pain experiences.

The Lower Extremity Physical Function Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Was Reliable, Valid, and Efficient for Patients With Musculoskeletal Impairments.

OBJECTIVE: To calibrate the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) items into a regional lower extremity physical function (LEPF) item bank and assess reliability, validity, and efficiency of computerized adaptive test (CAT) and short form (SF) administration modes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Data were collected from patients treated in outpatient rehabilitation clinics for musculoskeletal impairments of the hip, knee, foot, and ankle that responded to all 20 LEFS items at intake. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 14 years or older who started an episode of care during January 2016-October 2019 and identified the lower extremity region as the source of a primary musculoskeletal complaint. Total cohort included 78,186 patients (mean age, 53±19y, range, 14-89y). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Item response theory (IRT) model assumptions of unidimensionality, local item independence, item fit, and presence of differential item functioning (DIF) were studied. LEPF-CAT- and LEPF-SF-generated scores were evaluated. RESULTS: An 18-item solution was supported for its unidimensionality and fit to the IRT model, with reliability estimates >0.9 for all administration modes. No DIF impact on LEPF scores was identified. Scores discriminated between multiple patient groups in clinically logical ways and were highly responsive to change, with negligible floor or ceiling effects. CAT scores were generated using an average of 4.9 items (median, 4). CONCLUSIONS: The LEPF scores were reliable, valid, and efficient for assessing perceived physical function of patients with musculoskeletal impairments of the hip, knee, foot, and ankle; thus, it was found suitable for research and routine clinical administration. These findings are limited to the type of patients included in this study, with further validation needed to assess their generalizability.

International application of PROMIS computerized adaptive tests: US versus country-specific item parameters can be consequential for individual patient scores.

OBJECTIVE: PROMIS offers computerized adaptive tests (CAT) of patient-reported outcomes, using a single set of US-based IRT item parameters across populations and language-versions. The use of country-specific item parameters has local appeal, but also disadvantages. We illustrate the effects of choosing US or country-specific item parameters on PROMIS CAT T-scores. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Simulations were performed on response data from Dutch chronic pain patients (n = 1110) who completed the PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank. We compared CAT T-scores obtained with (1) US parameters; (2) Dutch item parameters; (3) US item parameters for DIF-free items and Dutch item parameters (rescaled to the US metric) for DIF items; (4) Dutch item parameters for all items (rescaled to the US metric). RESULTS: Without anchoring to a common metric, CAT T-scores cannot be compared. When scores were rescaled to the US metric, mean differences in CAT T-scores based on US vs. Dutch item parameters were negligible. However, 0.9%-4.3% of the T-score differences were larger than 5 points (0.5 SD). CONCLUSION: The choice of item parameters can be consequential for individual patient scores. We recommend more studies of translated CATs to examine if strategies that allow for country-specific item parameters should be further investigated.

Patients and clinicians define symptom levels and meaningful change for PROMIS pain interference and fatigue in RA using bookmarking.

OBJECTIVES: Using patient-reported outcomes to inform clinical decision-making depends on knowing how to interpret scores. Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) instruments are increasingly used in rheumatology research and care, but there is little information available to guide interpretation of scores. We sought to identify thresholds and meaningful change for PROMIS Pain Interference and Fatigue scores from the perspective of RA patients and clinicians. METHODS: We developed patient vignettes using the PROMIS item banks representing a continuum of Pain Interference and Fatigue levels. During a series of face-to-face 'bookmarking' sessions, patients and clinicians identified thresholds for mild, moderate and severe levels of symptoms and identified change deemed meaningful for making treatment decisions. RESULTS: In general, patients selected higher cut points to demarcate thresholds than clinicians. Patients and clinicians generally identified changes of 5-10 points as representing meaningful change. The thresholds and meaningful change scores of patients were grounded in their lived experiences having RA, approach to self-management, and the impacts on function, roles and social participation. CONCLUSION: Results offer new information about how both patients and clinicians view RA symptoms and functional impacts. Results suggest that patients and providers may use different strategies to define and interpret RA symptoms, and select different thresholds when describing symptoms as mild, moderate or severe. The magnitude of symptom change selected by patients and clinicians as being clinically meaningful in interpreting treatment efficacy and loss of response may be greater than levels determined by external anchor and statistical methods.

Development and validation of an interpretive guide for PROMIS scores.

BACKGROUND: Accurate score interpretation is required for the appropriate use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To create and evaluate figures (T-score Maps) to facilitate the interpretation of scores on Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures. METHODS: For 21 PROMIS® short forms, item-level information was used to predict the most probable responses to items for the range of possible scores on each short form. Predicted responses were then "mapped" graphically along the range of possible scores. In a previously conducted longitudinal study, 1594 adult participants with chronic conditions (e.g., multiple sclerosis) responded to four items each of a subset of these PROMIS short forms. Participants' responses to these items were compared to those predicted by the T-score Maps. Difference scores were calculated between observed and predicted scores, and Spearman correlations were calculated. RESULTS: We constructed T-score Maps for 21 PROMIS short forms for adults and pediatric self- and parent-proxy report. For the clinical population, participants' actual responses were strongly correlated with their predicted responses (r = 0.762 to 0.950). The majority of predicted responses exactly matched observed responses (range 69.5% to 85.3%). CONCLUSION: Results support the validity of the predicted responses used to construct T-score Maps. T-score Maps are ready to be tested as interpretation aids in a variety of applications.

Associations between interim patient-reported outcome measures and functional status at discharge from rehabilitation for non-specific lumbar impairments.

PURPOSE: Identify impact of frequency and timing of interim Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) assessments during episodes of care for rehabilitation services in outpatient clinical settings on functional status (FS) outcomes at discharge for patients with low back pain. METHODS: FS outcomes of patients who had no interim PROMs were compared to outcomes of six patient groups defined by interim timing (early, mid, late) and frequency (1, 2 or more). For each comparison, patients were matched using propensity score matching for variables known to be associated with FS outcomes and for episode duration (days) and number of visits. FS was assessed using the lumbar computerized adaptive test (LCAT) where scores range from 0 to 100 with higher scores representing better physical function. RESULTS: A sample of 140,336 patients was considered for matching (mean age = 58 [SD = 17] range 18-89; 60% females) with 83,101 patients (59%) having no interim PROMs. Patients who had only one interim PROM, administered during early (first 2 weeks), mid (weeks 3-4), or late (week 5 or later) timing, had 4.6, 2.7, and 1.0 additional FS score points at discharge compared to those without an interim PROM, respectively (p < 0.001). Having two or more interim PROMs was associated with an additional 1.2 FS points compared to having only one interim assessment, but only if the first interim was administered early. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal utilization of interim PROM assessment during clinical practice to enhance treatment outcomes was related to administering the first interim PROM within the first 2 weeks after the initial evaluation.