The PROPr can be measured using different PROMIS domain item sets

Christoph Paul Klapproth; Felix Fischer; Annika Doehmen; Milan Kock; Jens Rohde; Kathrin Rieger; Ullrich Keilholz; Matthias Rose; Alexander Obbarius

doi:10.1016/j.canep.2024.102658

The PROPr can be measured using different PROMIS domain item sets

Cancer Epidemiol. 2024 Sep 10:93:102658. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2024.102658. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Christoph Paul Klapproth¹, Felix Fischer², Annika Doehmen², Milan Kock², Jens Rohde², Kathrin Rieger³, Ullrich Keilholz⁴, Matthias Rose², Alexander Obbarius⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, BIH Biomedical Innovation Academy, BIH Charité Digital Clinician Scientist Program, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin 10117, Germany. Electronic address: christoph-paul.klapproth@charite.de.
² Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
³ Department of Hematology, Oncology and Cancer Immunology, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
⁴ Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCCC), Department of Oncology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
⁵ Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, BIH Biomedical Innovation Academy, BIH Charité Digital Clinician Scientist Program, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin 10117, Germany; Dornsife Center for Self-report Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

PMID: 39260316
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2024.102658

Abstract

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Preference Score (PROPr) is estimated from descriptive health assessments within the PROMIS framework. The underlying item response theory (IRT) allows researchers to measure PROMIS health domains with any subset of items that are calibrated to this domain. Consequently, this should also be true for the PROPr. We aimed to test this assumption using both an empirical and a simulation approach.

Methods: Empirically, we estimated 3 PROMIS Pain inference (PI) scores from 3 different item subsets in a sample of n=199 cancer patients: 4 PROMIS-29 items (estimate: θ₄), the 2 original PROPr items (θ₂), and 10 different items (θ₁₀). We calculated mean differences and agreement between θ₄, and θ₂ and θ₁₀, respectively, and between their resulting PROPr₄, PROPr₂, PROPr₁₀, using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman (B-A) plots with 95 %-Limits of Agreement (LoA). For the simulation, we used the IRT-model to calculate all item responses of the entire 7 PROPr domain item banks from the empirically observed PROMIS-29+cognition θ. From these simulated item banks, we chose the 2 original PROPr items per domain to calculate PROPr_sim and compared it to PROPr₄ again using ICC and B-A plots.

Results: θ₄ vs θ₁₀ showed smaller bias (-0.012, 95 %-LoA -0.88;0.85) than θ₄ vs θ₂ (0.025, 95 %-LoA -0.95;1.00. ICC>0.85 (p<0.001) in both θ-comparisons. PROPr₄ vs PROPr₁₀ showed lower bias (0.0012, 95 %-LoA -0.039;0.042) than PROPr₄ vs PROPr₂ (-0.0029, 95 %-LoA -0.049;0.044). ICC>0.98 (p<0.0001) on both PROPr-comparisons. Mean PROPr_sim was larger than mean PROPr₄ (0.0228, 95 %-LoA -0.1103; 0.1558) and ICC was 0.95 (95 %CI 0.93; 0.97).

Conclusion: Different item subsets can be used to estimate the PROMIS PI for calculation of the PROPr. Reduction to 2 items per domain rather than 4 does not significantly change the PROPr estimate on average. Agreements differ across the spectrum and in individual comparisons.

Keywords: HRQoL; IRT; PROMIS; PROPr; Pain; Patient Reported Outcomes.