Representativeness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Internet panel

UCLA Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research, University of California-Los Angeles, 911 Broxton Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Journal of clinical epidemiology (Impact Factor: 5.48). 11/2010; 63(11):1169-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), which collected data from an Internet polling panel, and to compare PROMIS with national norms.
We compared demographics and self-rated health of the PROMIS general Internet sample (N=11,796) and one of its subsamples (n=2,196) selected to approximate the joint distribution of demographics from the 2000 U.S. Census, with three national surveys and U.S. Census data. The comparisons were conducted using equivalence testing with weights created for PROMIS by raking.
The weighted PROMIS population and subsample had similar demographics compared with the 2000 U.S. Census, except that the subsample had a higher percentage of people with higher education than high school. Equivalence testing shows similarity between PROMIS general population and national norms with regard to body mass index, EQ-5D health index (EuroQol group defined descriptive system of health-related quality of life states consisting of five dimensions including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), and self-rating of general health.
Self-rated health of the PROMIS general population is similar to that of existing samples from the general U.S. population. The weighted PROMIS general population is more comparable to national norms than the unweighted population with regard to subject characteristics. The findings suggest that the representativeness of the Internet data is comparable to those from probability-based general population samples.


Available from: Richard Gershon, Jun 12, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context/Objective The Spinal Cord Injury - Quality of Life (SCI-QOL) measurement system was developed to address the shortage of relevant and psychometrically sound patient reported outcome (PRO) measures available for clinical care and research in spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation. Using a computer adaptive testing (CAT) approach, the SCI-QOL builds on the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QOL) initiative. This initial manuscript introduces the background and development of the SCI-QOL measurement system. Greater detail is presented in the additional manuscripts of this special issue. Design Classical and contemporary test development methodologies were employed. Qualitative input was obtained from individuals with SCI and clinicians through interviews, focus groups, and cognitive debriefing. Item pools were field tested in a multi-site sample (n = 877) and calibrated using item response theory methods. Initial reliability and validity testing was performed in a new sample of individuals with traumatic SCI (n = 245). Setting Five Model SCI System centers and one Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center across the United States. Participants Adults with traumatic SCI. Interventions n/a Outcome Measures n/a Results The SCI-QOL consists of 19 item banks, including the SCI-Functional Index banks, and 3 fixed-length scales measuring physical, emotional, and social aspects of health-related QOL (HRQOL). Conclusion The SCI-QOL measurement system consists of psychometrically sound measures for individuals with SCI. The manuscripts in this special issue provide evidence of the reliability and initial validity of this measurement system. The SCI-QOL also links to other measures designed for a general medical population.
    The journal of spinal cord medicine 05/2015; 38(3):257-269. DOI:10.1179/2045772315Y.0000000023 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To develop a comprehensive, psychometrically sound, and conceptually grounded patient reported outcomes (PRO) measurement system for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods Individual interviews (n = 44) and focus groups (n = 65 individuals with SCI and n = 42 SCI clinicians) were used to select key domains for inclusion and to develop PRO items. Verbatim items from other cutting-edge measurement systems (i.e. PROMIS, Neuro-QOL) were included to facilitate linkage and cross-population comparison. Items were field tested in a large sample of individuals with traumatic SCI (n = 877). Dimensionality was assessed with confirmatory factor analysis. Local item dependence and differential item functioning were assessed, and items were calibrated using the item response theory (IRT) graded response model. Finally, computer adaptive tests (CATs) and short forms were administered in a new sample (n = 245) to assess test-retest reliability and stability. Participants and Procedures A calibration sample of 877 individuals with traumatic SCI across five SCI Model Systems sites and one Department of Veterans Affairs medical center completed SCI-QOL items in interview format. Results We developed 14 unidimensional calibrated item banks and 3 calibrated scales across physical, emotional, and social health domains. When combined with the five Spinal Cord Injury - Functional Index physical function banks, the final SCI-QOL system consists of 22 IRT-calibrated item banks/scales. Item banks may be administered as CATs or short forms. Scales may be administered in a fixed-length format only. Conclusions The SCI-QOL measurement system provides SCI researchers and clinicians with a comprehensive, relevant and psychometrically robust system for measurement of physical-medical, physical-functional, emotional, and social outcomes. All SCI-QOL instruments are freely available on Assessment Center(SM).
    The journal of spinal cord medicine 05/2015; 38(3):270-287. DOI:10.1179/2045772315Y.0000000034 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Investigation into personal health has become focused on conditions at an increasingly local level, while response rates have declined and complicated the process of collecting data at an individual level. Simultaneously, social media data have exploded in availability and have been shown to correlate with the prevalence of certain health conditions. Facebook likes may be a source of digital data that can complement traditional public health surveillance systems and provide data at a local level. We explored the use of Facebook likes as potential predictors of health outcomes and their behavioral determinants. We performed principal components and regression analyses to examine the predictive qualities of Facebook likes with regard to mortality, diseases, and lifestyle behaviors in 214 counties across the United States and 61 of 67 counties in Florida. These results were compared with those obtainable from a demographic model. Health data were obtained from both the 2010 and 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and mortality data were obtained from the National Vital Statistics System. Facebook likes added significant value in predicting most examined health outcomes and behaviors even when controlling for age, race, and socioeconomic status, with model fit improvements (adjusted R(2)) of an average of 58% across models for 13 different health-related metrics over basic sociodemographic models. Small area data were not available in sufficient abundance to test the accuracy of the model in estimating health conditions in less populated markets, but initial analysis using data from Florida showed a strong model fit for obesity data (adjusted R(2)=.77). Facebook likes provide estimates for examined health outcomes and health behaviors that are comparable to those obtained from the BRFSS. Online sources may provide more reliable, timely, and cost-effective county-level data than that obtainable from traditional public health surveillance systems as well as serve as an adjunct to those systems.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 01/2015; 17(4):e98. DOI:10.2196/jmir.3970 · 4.67 Impact Factor