Adapting summary scores for the PROMIS-29 v2.0 for use among older adults with multiple chronic conditions
The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system 29-item profile (PROMIS-29 v2.0) is a widely used health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure. Summary scores for physical and mental HRQoL have recently been developed for the PROMIS-29 using a general population. Our purpose was to adapt these summary scores to a population of older adults with multiple chronic conditions.
We collected the PROMIS-29 v2.0 for 1359 primary care patients age 65+ with at least 2 of 13 chronic conditions. PROMIS-29 has 7 domains, plus a single-item pain intensity scale. We used exploratory factor analysis (EFA), followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), to examine the number of factors that best captured these eight scores. We used previous results from a recent study by Hays et al. (Qual Life Res 27:1885–1891, 2018) to standardize scoring coefficients, normed to the general population.
The mean age was 80.7, and 67% of participants were age 80 or older. Our results indicated a 2-factor solution, with these factors representing physical and mental HRQoL, respectively. We call these factors the physical health score (PHS) and the mental health score (MHS). We normed these summary scores to the general US population. The mean MHS for our population of was 50.1, similar to the US population, while the mean PHS was 42.2, almost a full standard deviation below the US population.
We describe the adaptation of physical and mental health summary scores of the PROMIS-29 for use with a population of older adults with multiple chronic conditions.
KeywordsPhysical health Mental health Quality of life PROMIS PROMIS-29 Comorbidity Geriatrics
Funded by the National Institute on Aging (contract #HHSN271201500064C NIH NIA, PI: Edelen). The funder had no role in data collection, data analysis, interpretation, manuscript drafting, manuscript revision, or decision to submit for publication.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.
Approved by the Human Subjects Research Protection Committee of the RAND Corporation and the Institutional Review Board of Kaiser Permanente Colorado. The authors declare that this study was conducted in accordance with appropriate ethical standards for research, including the Declaration of Helsinki.
Participants provided informed consent, with a waiver of documentation of informed consent.
- 1.Cella, D. F. (1995). Measuring quality of life in palliative care. Seminars in Oncology, 22(2 Suppl 3), 73–81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7537908.
- 2.Schipper, H., Clinch, J. J., & Olweny, C. L. M. (1996). Quality of life studies: Definitions and conceptual issues. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 11–23). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.Google Scholar
- 4.Chen, J., Ou, L., & Hollis, S. J. (2013). A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organizations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Services Research, 13, 211. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Hays, R. D., Alonso, J., & Coons, S. J. (1998). Possibilities for summarizing health-related quality of life when using a profile instrument. In M. Staquet, R. Hays & P. Fayers (Eds.), Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: Methods and practice (153, p. 143). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 13.Edelen, M. O., Rose, A. J., Bayliss, E., Baseman, L., Butcher, E., Garcia, R. E., Tabano, D., & Stucky, B. D. (2017). Patient-reported outcome-based performance measures for older adults with multiple chronic conditions. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2176.html.
- 14.Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). item response theory for psychologists. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- 18.SAS (9.4 ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Corporation.Google Scholar
- 19.Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- 22.Beaumont, J. L., Cella, D., Phan, A. T., Choi, S., Liu, Z., & Yao, J. C. (2012). Comparison of health-related quality of life in patients with neuroendocrine tumors with quality of life in the general US population. Pancreas, 41(3), 461–466. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0b013e318232804527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Kazis, L. E., Miller, D. R., Skinner, K. M., Lee, A., Ren, X. S., Clark, J. A. el al (2004). Patient-Reported Measures of Health: The Veterans Health Study. The Journal of ambulatory care management, 27(1), 70–83. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14717468.
- 24.Revicki, D. A., Kawata, A. K., Harnam, N., Chen, W.-H., Hays, R. D., & Cella, D. (2009). Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Quality of Life Research, 18, 783–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Quan, H., Sundararajan, V., Halfon, P., Fong, A., Burnand, B., Luthi, J. C., Saunders, L. D., Beck, C. A., Feasby, T. E., & Ghali, W. A. (2005). Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Medical Care, 43(11), 1130–1139. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar