IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i6p704-718.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utilities Estimated from PROMIS Scales for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Stroke

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas R. Thompson

    (Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA)

  • Brittany R. Lapin

    (Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA)

  • Irene L. Katzan

    (Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA)

Abstract

Background The EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) are preference-based measures used in cost-effectiveness studies. The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Preference scoring system (PROPr) is a new preference-based measure. In addition, algorithms were previously developed to map PROMIS Global Health (PROMIS-GH) items to HUI-3 using linear equating (HUI LE ) and 3-level EQ-5D using linear (EQ5D LE ). We sought to evaluate and compare estimated utilities based on PROPr and PROMIS-GH in adult stroke survivors. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults diagnosed with 1 of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or subarachnoid hemorrhage seen in an outpatient clinic between 2015 and 2019. Patients completed PROMIS scales and other measures. We computed a modified version of PROPr (mPROPr) and compared the distributional characteristics and correlations with stroke outcomes for mPROPr, HUI LE , and EQ5D LE . Results T toal of 4,159 stroke survivors (average age 62.7 ± 14.7 y, 48.4% female, 77.6% ischemic stroke) were included. Mean utility estimates for mPROPr, EQ5D LE , and HUI LE were 0.333 ± 0.244, 0.739 ± 0.201, and 0.544 ± 0.301, respectively. Correlations between the modified Rankin Scale and each of mPROPr and HUI LE were both −0.48 and −0.43 for EQ5D LE . Regression analyses indicated that mPROPr scores may be too low for stroke patients in good health and that EQ5D LE scores may be too high for stroke patients in poor health. Conclusions All 3 PROMIS-based utilities were associated with measures of stroke disability and severity, but the distributions of utilities were very different. Our study highlights the problem cost-effectiveness researchers face of valuing health states with certainty. For researchers using utilities estimated from PROMIS scales, our study indicates that mapping PROMIS-GH item scores to HUI-3 via linear equating may be most appropriate in stroke patients. Highlights A new preference-based measure has been developed from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), known as the PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) scoring system, and published equations mapping PROMIS Global Health (PROMIS-GH) items to the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) and EQ-5D-3L are available for use in cost-effectiveness studies. Our study provides distributional characteristics and comparisons of utilities estimated using a modified version of PROPr and equations mapping PROMIS-GH items to EQ-5D-3L and HUI-3 in a sample of stroke survivors. The results of our study show large differences in the distributions of utilities estimated using the different health state measures, and these differences highlight the ongoing difficulty researchers face in valuing health states with certainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas R. Thompson & Brittany R. Lapin & Irene L. Katzan, 2023. "Utilities Estimated from PROMIS Scales for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Stroke," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(6), pages 704-718, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:6:p:704-718
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231182446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231182446
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231182446?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janel Hanmer & Barry Dewitt & Lan Yu & Joel Tsevat & Mark Roberts & Dennis Revicki & Paul A Pilkonis & Rachel Hess & Ron D Hays & Baruch Fischhoff & David Feeny & David Condon & David Cella, 2018. "Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Barry Dewitt & David Feeny & Baruch Fischhoff & David Cella & Ron D. Hays & Rachel Hess & Paul A. Pilkonis & Dennis A. Revicki & Mark S. Roberts & Joel Tsevat & Lan Yu & Janel Hanmer, 2018. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Summary Score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: The PROMIS®-Preference (PROPr) Scoring System," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 683-698, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tianxin Pan & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & Janel Hanmer & Nancy Devlin, 2022. "A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 297-307, March.
    2. Janel Hanmer & Barry Dewitt & Lan Yu & Joel Tsevat & Mark Roberts & Dennis Revicki & Paul A Pilkonis & Rachel Hess & Ron D Hays & Baruch Fischhoff & David Feeny & David Condon & David Cella, 2018. "Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, July.
    3. Mona Aghdaee & Yuanyuan Gu & Kompal Sinha & Bonny Parkinson & Rajan Sharma & Henry Cutler, 2023. "Mapping the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) to EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 187-198, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:6:p:704-718. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.