Evidence on the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D: a literature review

Pan, Tianxin; Mulhern, Brendan; Viney, Rosalie; Norman, Richard; Tran‐Duy, An; Hanmer, Janel; Devlin, Nancy

doi:10.1007/s11136-021-02911-4

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, we have not tested the impact of EQ-5D-5L value sets and PROPr using patient-reported data, which would enable us to directly compare QALY estimates produced from each. More research is needed using both instruments in a variety of clinical contexts and longitudinally [ 11 , 34 , 35 ]. Our ongoing research aims to address these gaps in evidence using patient data [ 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both PROPr and EQ-5D-5L are potential candidates for use in economic evaluation. However, a recent systematic review of studies comparing EQ-5D and PROMIS-29 instruments noted the lack of research comparing the measurement properties and utilities of the two, and highlighted the importance of comparing the characteristics of their respective value sets [ 11 ]. It is important for decision makers and those using the measures in clinical trials to understand the differences between instruments and their implications for assessing the impact of healthcare interventions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The EQ-5D-5L and its value sets are widely used internationally. However, in the US and elsewhere, there is growing use of PROMIS, which has a value set (PROPr) based on the stated preferences of the US population. This paper aims to compare the characteristics of EQ-5D-5L and PROPr value sets and to highlight potential implications for users. Methods US, Australian and English value sets were used for EQ-5D-5L. PROPr utilities were calculated based on PROMIS-29 + 2. We examined, in each case, (i) the characteristics (e.g. range of values, number of unique values) and distribution of all possible ‘theoretical’ utilities; (ii) dimension/domain importance ranking by the utility of corner states (i.e. health states with the worst level in one domain and the best in all others); (iii) comparisons of utilities for health states hypothesised to be comparable in terms of severity across EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and PROMIS-29 + 2 domain scores; (iv) the changes in values of adjacent states (i.e. a one-level change in one dimension for EQ-5D-5L and a four-point change in raw scores for PROMIS-29 + 2, with the other dimensions held constant) for dimensions hypothesised to overlap conceptually or be correlated between the two instruments. Results EQ-5D-5L and PROPr utilities differ systematically. First, the US EQ-5D-5L utilities range from − 0.573 to 1, whereas PROPr values for PROMIS-29 + 2 range from − 0.022 to 0.954. Second, in the US (and English) EQ-5D-5L value sets, pain is the most important dimension whereas in PROPr pain is one of the least important (apart from sleep disturbance). Third, classified based on severity across EQ-5D-5L descriptive systems and PROMIS-29 + 2 domain scores, PROPr has substantially lower values than EQ-5D-5L values for comparable ‘mild’ health states, but higher values for more ‘severe’ health states. Last, when one dimension is considered across its best to worst levels and all other dimensions are held constant at their best or moderate level, in EQ-5D-5L value sets, the greatest changes in utility occur between levels 3 and 4 (moderate and severe) problems; in PROPr that occurred between the most severe states and their descriptively adjacent health states. Conclusion There are very considerable differences between US EQ-5D-5L and PROPr utilities, despite both in principle representing utility on the same scale anchored at 0 and 1 and both representing the preferences of the US general public. It is important for decision makers and clinical triallists to be aware of these differences. Further work is needed to assess the impact of these differences in value sets using population and patient data, and in longitudinal settings. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-021-01109-3.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering the exorbitant indirect costs of low productivity which exceed direct health costs by more than 100% in case of upper extremity PNIs [14,[82][83][84] an adequate prognostic assessment and a personalized interdisciplinary treatment are of outmost relevance. A battery of structured preoperative assessment tools such as the PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D [85] are suited to determine the impact of peripheral nerve injuries on patient-reported QoL. The healthcare team involved in treatment of patients with PNI should consist of expert not only in surgical treatment of nerve injuries, but also specialist for physical as well as emotional adaptation and resilience, e.g., hand therapists, occupational therapists, psychologist, and social workers [86].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the Knife—Reviewing the Interplay of Psychosocial Factors and Peripheral Nerve Lesions

Heinzel

Dadun

Prahm

et al. 2021

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peripheral nerve injuries are a common clinical problem. They not only affect the physical capabilities of the injured person due to loss of motor or sensory function but also have a significant impact on psychosocial aspects of life. The aim of this work is to review the interplay of psychosocial factors and peripheral nerve lesions. By reviewing the published literature, we identified several factors to be heavily influenced by peripheral nerve lesions. In addition to psychological factors like pain, depression, catastrophizing and stress, social factors like employment status and worker’s compensation status could be identified to be influenced by peripheral nerve lesions as well as serving as predictors of functional outcome themselves, respectively. This work sheds a light not only on the impact of peripheral nerve lesions on psychosocial aspects of life, but also on the prognostic values of these factors of functional outcome. Interdisciplinary, individualized treatment of patients is required to identify patient at risk for adverse outcomes and provide them with emotional support when adapting to their new life situation.

show abstract

“…Among the three PROMIS adult profile measures, PROMIS-29 is the most widely used as a standalone, concise HRQoL measure [ 13 ]. By extending it with two items of cognitive function (PROMIS-29+2), it allows the estimation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to assess benefits of treatments in economic analyses [ 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hungarian PROMIS-29+2: psychometric properties and population reference values

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aims to assess psychometric properties of the Hungarian PROMIS-29+2 profile measure and provide general population reference values for Hungary. Methods An adult general population sample (n = 1700) completed PROMIS-29+2 v2.1 in an online survey. The following psychometric properties were assessed: floor and ceiling effect, convergent validity with SF-36v1 domains, internal consistency (McDonald’s omega), unidimensionality, local independence, monotonicity, graded response model (GRM) fit and differential item functioning (DIF). Age- and gender-specific reference values were established using the US item calibrations. Results Depending on scale orientation, high floor or ceiling effects were observed for all domains (25.2–60.7%) except for sleep disturbance. McDonald’s omega for domains ranged from 0.87–0.97. Unidimensionality, local independence and monotonicity were supported and the GRM adequately fitted for all but one domains. The sleep disturbance domain demonstrated item misfit, response level disordering and low discrimination ability, particularly for item Sleep116 (‘refreshing sleep’). Strong correlations were observed between PROMIS-29+2 and corresponding SF-36 domains (rs=│0.60│ to │0.78│). No DIF was detected for most sociodemographic characteristics. Problems with physical function, pain interference and social roles tended to increase, whereas problems with anxiety, depression, fatigue and cognitive function declined with age (p < 0.01). In all domains except for cognitive function, more health problems occurred in females than in males (p < 0.001). Conclusion The Hungarian PROMIS-29+2 shows satisfactory psychometric properties; however, the sleep disturbance domain substantially underperforms that requires further attention. Population reference values were generated that facilitate the interpretation of health outcomes in various patient populations.

show abstract

Evidence on the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D: a literature review

Cited by 9 publications

References 50 publications

A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

Beyond the Knife—Reviewing the Interplay of Psychosocial Factors and Peripheral Nerve Lesions

Hungarian PROMIS-29+2: psychometric properties and population reference values

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About