Applied Research in Quality of Life

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 89–103 | Cite as

Clinical Validation of PROMIS Global Short Form in Pregnancy

  • Lisbet S. Lundsberg
  • Eleanor B. Schwarz
  • Nicole A. Vilardo
  • Kimberly A. Yonkers
  • Aileen M. Gariepy


Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important patient-reported outcome, yet research regarding HRQoL during pregnancy is limited. We examined HRQoL during pregnancy using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Short Form (GSF) and validated the GSF compared to legacy HRQoL measures. We evaluated HRQoL among 161 women seeking pregnancy care in urban clinic settings. Participants completed measures of HRQoL, social support, antenatal depression, and utility. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients were calculated. Participants averaged 27(±6.6) years and were culturally diverse: 42% self-identified as Hispanic, 37% Black, non-Hispanic, 14% White, non-Hispanic and 7% multiracial or other. Mean estimated gestational age was 9 (±4.6) weeks. PROMIS GSF Physical T-scores were significantly correlated with SF-12 Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) HRQoL measures (correlation coefficient=0.40 and 0.49, p-value<0.0001, respectively), the Modified Kendler Social Support Index (MKSSI) (correlation coefficient=0.42, p-value<0.0001), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) measure of utility (correlation coefficient=0.19, p-value =0.04). GSF Mental T-scores were associated with SF-12 MCS and PCS (correlation coefficient=0.66, p-value<0.0001, and 0.26, p-value<0.01, respectively), MKSSI (correlation coefficient=0.50, p-value<0.0001), and VAS (correlation coefficient=0.29, p-value<0.01). GSF Physical and Mental scores were inversely associated with the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS), correlation coefficient= −0.62 and − 0.71, respectively (p-value<0.0001). GSF-derived utility measures demonstrate significant correlation with SF-12 PCS and MCS, MKSSI, EPDS, and VAS. Overall, PROMIS GSF domains demonstrate correlation with legacy HRQoL measures as well as validated measures of social support, depression, and utility among a diverse cohort of pregnant women.


Health related quality of life (HRQoL) Utility Pregnancy PROMIS 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Gariepy received a Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR000142) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS). Dr. Lundsberg was supported by CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR000142. Dr. Yonkers has no conflicts of interest related to the current publication; outside the submitted work; she has worked as a consultant for Pontifax regarding premenstrual dysphoric disorders, received NIH funding, and royalties from Up-to-Date. Dr. Schwarz and Dr. Vilardo declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


This study was funded by CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR000142 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of NIH.


  1. Alcantara, J., Alcantara, J. D., & Alcantara, J. (2015). The use of validated outcome measures in the chiropractic care of pregnant patients: a systematic review of the literature. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 21(2), 131–136. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2015.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biratu, A., & Haile, D. (2015). Prevalence of antenatal depression and associated factors among pregnant women in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Reproductive Health, 12, 99. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0092-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000258615.42478.55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang, S. R., Chen, K. H., Lin, M. I., Lin, H. H., Huang, L. H., & Lin, W. A. (2014). A repeated measures study of changes in health-related quality of life during pregnancy and the relationship with obstetric factors. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(10), 2245–2256. doi: 10.1111/jan.12374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox, J. L., Chapman, G., Murray, D., & Jones, P. (1996). Validation of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in non-postnatal women. Journal of Affective Disorders, 39(3), 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox, J. L., Holden, J. M., & Sagovsky, R. (1987). Detection of postnatal depression. Development of the 10-item Edinburgh postnatal depression scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 782–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creinin, M. D. (2000). Randomized comparison of efficacy, acceptability and cost of medical versus surgical abortion. Contraception, 62(3), 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curtin, S.C., Abma, J.C., & Ventura, S.J. (2013). Pregnancy rates for U.S. women continue to drop. In NCHS Data Brief Number 136, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC.Google Scholar
  10. DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., Stone, A. A., & Group, P. C. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S12–S21. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254567.79743.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EuroQol, G. (1990). EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2014). Shifts in intended and unintended pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008. American Journal of Public Health, 104(Suppl 1), S43–S48. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibson, J., McKenzie-McHarg, K., Shakespeare, J., Price, J., & Gray, R. (2009). A systematic review of studies validating the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale in antepartum and postpartum women. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 119(5), 350–364. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01363.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldhaber-Fiebert, J. D., & Brandeau, M. L. (2015). Evaluating cost-effectiveness of interventions that affect fertility and childbearing: how health effects are measured matters. Medical Decision Making, 35(7), 818–846. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15583845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 873–880. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heron, J., O’Connor, T. G., Evans, J., Golding, J., Glover, V., & Team, A. S. (2004). The course of anxiety and depression through pregnancy and the postpartum in a community sample. Journal of Affective Disorders, 80(1), 65–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2003.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jomeen, J., & Martin, C. R. (2005). The factor structure of the SF-36 in early pregnancy. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 59(3), 131–138. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.02.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klem, M., Saghafi, E., Abromitis, R., Stover, A., Dew, M. A., & Pilkonis, P. (2009). Building PROMIS item banks: librarians as co-investigators. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 881–888. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9498-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lubinga, S. J., Levine, G. A., Jenny, A. M., Ngonzi, J., Mukasa-Kivunike, P., Stergachis, A., et al. (2013). Health-related quality of life and social support among women treated for abortion complications in western Uganda. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 118. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lyon, D., McCain, N., Elswick, R. K., Sturgill, J., Ameringer, S., Jallo, N., et al. (2014). Biobehavioral examination of fatigue across populations: report from a P30 Center of Excellence. Nursing Outlook, 62(5), 322–331. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matthey, S., Henshaw, C., Elliott, S., & Barnett, B. (2006). Variability in use of cut-off scores and formats on the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale: implications for clinical and research practice. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 9(6), 309–315. doi: 10.1007/s00737-006-0152-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mogos, M. F., August, E. M., Salinas-Miranda, A. A., Sultan, D. H., & Salihu, H. M. (2013). A systematic review of quality of life measures in pregnant and postpartum mothers. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 8(2), 219–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mortazavi, F., Mousavi, S. A., Chaman, R., & Khosravi, A. (2014). Maternal quality of life during the transition to motherhood. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 16(5), e8443. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.8443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Myers, E. R. (2015). How should we estimate the cost-effectiveness of interventions that affect reproduction? Medical Decision Making, 35(7), 812–814. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15602227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petrou, S., Morrell, J., & Spiby, H. (2009). Assessing the empirical validity of alternative multi-attribute utility measures in the maternity context. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 40. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. PROMIS (2010). Scoring PROMIS Global Short Form. Accessed 27 Jan 2016.
  27. 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(6), 783–791. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9489-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robinson, A., Loomes, G., & Jones-Lee, M. (2001). Visual analog scales, standard gambles, and relative risk aversion. Medical Decision Making, 21(1), 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rochat, T. J., Richter, L. M., Doll, H. A., Buthelezi, N. P., Tomkins, A., & Stein, A. (2006). Depression among pregnant rural South African women undergoing HIV testing. JAMA, 295(12), 1376–1378. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.12.1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwarz, E. B., Smith, R., Steinauer, J., Reeves, M. F., & Caughey, A. B. (2008). Measuring the effects of unintended pregnancy on women’s quality of life. Contraception, 78(3), 204–210. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.04.120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Senturk, V., Abas, M., Berksun, O., & Stewart, R. (2011). Social support and antenatal depression in extended and nuclear family environments in Turkey: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Psychiatry, 11, 48. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-11-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shaheen, R., & Lindholm, L. (2006). Quality of life among pregnant women with chronic energy deficiency in rural Bangladesh. Health Policy, 78(2–3), 128–134. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Siu, A. L., U. S. P. S. T. Force, Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Baumann, L. C., Davidson, K. W., et al. (2016). Screening for depression in adults: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA, 315(4), 380–387. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spoozak, L., Gotman, N., Smith, M. V., Belanger, K., & Yonkers, K. A. (2009). Evaluation of a social support measure that may indicate risk of depression during pregnancy. Journal of Affective Disorders, 114(1–3), 216–223. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.07.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tavoli, Z., Tavoli, A., Amirpour, R., Hosseini, R., & Montazeri, A. (2016). Quality of life in women who were exposed to domestic violence during pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16(1), 19. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0810-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Teresi, J. A., Ocepek-Welikson, K., Kleinman, M., Eimicke, J. P., Crane, P. K., Jones, R. N., et al. (2009). Analysis of differential item functioning in the depression item bank from the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS): an item response theory approach. Psychology Science Quarterly, 51(2), 148–180.Google Scholar
  37. Torrance, G. W. (1987). Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(6), 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsai, S. Y., Lee, P. L., Lin, J. W., & Lee, C. N. (2016). Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between sleep and health-related quality of life in pregnant women: a prospective observational study. International Journal of Nursing Studies. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.01.001.Google Scholar
  39. Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research, 12(6), 599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Mello, N. M., Mol, F., Hajenius, P. J., Ankum, W. M., Mol, B. W., van der Veen, F., et al. (2015). Randomized comparison of health-related quality of life in women with ectopic pregnancy or pregnancy of unknown location treated with systemic methotrexate or expectant management. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 192, 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.06.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vinturache, A., Stephenson, N., McDonald, S., Wu, M., Bayrampour, H., & Tough, S. (2015). Health-related quality of life in pregnancy and postpartum among women with assisted conception in Canada. Fertility and Sterility, 104(1), 188 e181–195 e181. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.04.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ware, J., Jr., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34(3), 220–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Washington, C. I., Jamshidi, R., Thung, S. F., Nayeri, U. A., Caughey, A. B., & Werner, E. F. (2015). Timing of postpartum intrauterine device placement: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Fertility and Sterility, 103(1), 131–137. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weinstein, M. C., Torrance, G., & McGuire, A. (2009). QALYs: the basics. Value in Health, 12(Suppl 1), S5–S9. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisbet S. Lundsberg
    • 1
  • Eleanor B. Schwarz
    • 2
  • Nicole A. Vilardo
    • 1
  • Kimberly A. Yonkers
    • 3
  • Aileen M. Gariepy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive SciencesYale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.University of California, DavisSacramentoUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychiatryYale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations