1 / 17

Responsiveness of PROMIS Physical Functioning Measure in Rheumatoid Arthritis

This study examines the responsiveness of the PROMIS Physical Functioning Measure in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. The results demonstrate the effect size of the measure and its ability to accurately assess changes in physical functioning over time.

rgrillo
Télécharger la présentation

Responsiveness of PROMIS Physical Functioning Measure in Rheumatoid Arthritis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Responsiveness of PROMIS Physical Functioning Measure in Rheumatoid Arthritis Ron D. Hays October 25, 2011 (Morning) Denver, Colorado

  2. Future Issues • Bootstrapped SE for ES • Standardized response mean • More anchors in memo/future paper

  3. Joan Broderick’s comment • about interpreting ES is supported by 2000 publication in Pharmacoeconomics. • “Researchers evaluating measures sometimes hail their virtues based solely on the magnitude of the HR-QOL score of differences without considering the size difference one should expect theoretically. A ‘bigger the better’ mentality is associated with a lack of hypotheses or theory about the underlying process. In a quest to show that an instrument is responsive to change over time, instrument developers may proclaim the validity of a HR-QOL measure because it changes over time, but fail to note that the degree of change should vary depending on whether the consequence of the intervention or perturbation in status is minor (e.g. getting bumped by a pedistrian) or major (e.g. getting hit by a truck).”

  4. Background

  5. Background • One-year longitudinal observational study of 451 persons who met American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA • Baseline, 6 months and 12 months post-baseline • Designed to evaluate responsiveness of PROMIS “20”-item physical functioning short-form (“Are you able to wash your back?” excluded). • Legacy measures • SF-36 Physical functioning scale and Health Assessment Questionnaire

  6. Retrospective Rating of Change in Physical Activity We would like know about any changes in how you are feeling now compared to how you were feeling 6 months ago. How has your ability to carry out your everyday physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, carrying groceries, or moving a chair changed • Got a lot better • Got a little better • Stayed the same • Got a little worse • Got a lot worse

  7. Better Group We would like know about any changes in how you are feeling now compared to how you were feeling 6 months ago. How has your ability to carry out your everyday physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, carrying groceries, or moving a chair changed • Got a lot better (n = 21) or a little better (35)

  8. Worse Group We would like know about any changes in how you are feeling now compared to how you were feeling 6 months ago. How has your ability to carry out your everyday physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, carrying groceries, or moving a chair changed • Got a lot worse (n = 30) or a little worse (n = 113)

  9. Sample

  10. Sample Characteristics % female = 81% % white = 87% Mean Age (range) = 65 (20-70+) Mean education (range) = 14 years (1-18)

  11. Responsiveness Results

  12. Effect Size By Measure Wave 3 – Wave 1 Wave 3 – Wave 2 Reported getting a lot or a little better (better) or a lot or a little worse (worse) on retrospective change anchor.

  13. Prospective Change Effect Sizes by Anchor Change Subgroups Wave 3 is 12 months after wave 1. Wave 2 is 6 months after wave 1. Better = got a lot better or a little better on anchor. Worse = got a lot worse or a little worse on anchor.

  14. Prospective Change Effect Sizes by Anchor Change Subgroups Wave 3 – Wave 2 Wave 3 – Wave 1

  15. Change in PROMIS Physical Functioning Score by Anchor Change Subgroup

  16. Questions?

More Related