↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of options for presenting health-states from PROMIS® item banks for valuation exercises

Overview of attention for article published in Quality of Life Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of options for presenting health-states from PROMIS® item banks for valuation exercises
Published in
Quality of Life Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11136-018-1852-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janel Hanmer, David Cella, David Feeny, Baruch Fischhoff, Ron D. Hays, Rachel Hess, Paul A. Pilkonis, Dennis Revicki, Mark Roberts, Joel Tsevat, Lan Yu

Abstract

Health status descriptive systems based on item response theory (IRT), such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®), have item banks to measure domains of health. We developed a method to present such banks for health-state valuation. We evaluated four different presentation approaches: a single item (1S), 2 items presented separately (2S), 2 items presented together (2T), or 5 items presented together (5T). We evaluated these four approaches in three PROMIS item banks (depression, physical function, and sleep disturbance). Adult community members valued health-state descriptions using the visual analog scale and standard gamble methods. We compared the approaches by the range of item bank theta scores captured, participants' assessments of difficulty (1 = very easy to 7 = very hard), and exit interviews. Participants (n = 118) ranged in age from 18 to 71; 63% were female and 54% were white. The 1S approach captured the smallest range of theta scores. A monotonic relationship between theta score and mean standard gamble estimate was found with all approaches except 2S. Across all 3 item banks, mean difficulty assessments were 2.35 (1S), 2.69 (2T), 2.78 (5T), and 2.80 (2S). In exit interviews, participants generally found all four approaches similarly meaningful and realistic. Creating health descriptions by presenting 2 items maximized the range of theta while minimizing difficulty and maintaining a monotonic relationship with utility estimates. We recommend this approach for valuation of IRT-based descriptive systems such as PROMIS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Psychology 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,592,375
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#1,389
of 2,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,407
of 329,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#34
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,917 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.