We are upgrading the repository! The content freeze has been extended to December 11, 2024, when we expect the new repository to become available. New submissions or changes to existing items will not be allowed until after the new website goes live. All content already published will remain publicly available for searching and downloading. Updates will be posted in the Website Upgrade 2024 FAQ in the sidebar Help menu. Reach out to escholarship@umassmed.edu with any questions.

PROMIS-29 and EORTC QLQ-C30: an empirical investigation towards a common conception of health

Thumbnail
Name:
s11136-022-03324-7.pdf
Size:
871.6Kb
Format:
PDF
Download
Authors
Hartmann, Claudia
Fischer, Felix
Klapproth, Christoph P
Röhle, Robert
Rose, Matthias S. F.
Karsten, Maria M
UMass Chan Affiliations
Population and Quantitative Health Sciences
Document Type
Journal Article
Publication Date
2023-01-09
Keywords
Comparable outcome
Conceptualization of health
EORTC QLQ-C30
Health-related quality of life
PROMIS-29

Metadata
Show full item record
Link to Full Text
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03324-7
Abstract
Purpose: The assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measured via patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is a key component in clinical trials and increasingly used in clinical routine worldwide. Two PRO measures (PROMs) that share the same definition of health and report outcomes on a comparable T-metric anchored to general population samples are the PROMIS-29 and the EORTC QLQ-C30. In this study, we investigate the empirical agreement of these underlying concepts. Methods: We collected PROMIS-29 and EORTC QLQ-C30 data from 1,478 female patients at a breast cancer outpatient centre. We calculated descriptive statistics and correlations between the subscales of both instruments. We performed exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in randomly split subsamples in order to assess the underlying psychometric structure of both instruments. Results: The cohort (mean age = 47.4, ± 14.49) reported comparable mean HRQOL scores between the corresponding subscales of both instruments similar to general population reference values. Correlation between the corresponding subscales of both instruments ranged between 0.59 (Social Role) and 0.78 (Physical Functioning). Both an exploratory and a theoretically driven confirmatory factor analysis provided further support for conceptual agreement of the scales. Conclusion: EORTC QLQ-C30 and PROMIS-29 showed similar scores and satisfactory agreement in conceptional and statistical analysis. This suggests that the underlying conceptualization of health is reasonably close. Hence, the development of score transformation algorithms or calibration of both instruments on common scales could prospectively increase the comparability of clinical and research PRO data collected with either instrument.
Source
Hartmann C, Fischer F, Klapproth CP, Röhle R, Rose M, Karsten MM. PROMIS-29 and EORTC QLQ-C30: an empirical investigation towards a common conception of health. Qual Life Res. 2023 Mar;32(3):749-758. doi: 10.1007/s11136-022-03324-7. Epub 2023 Jan 9. PMID: 36617606; PMCID: PMC9992045.
DOI
10.1007/s11136-022-03324-7
Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/53608
PubMed ID
36617606
Rights
Open Access: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.; Attribution 4.0 International
Distribution License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Collections

The following license files are associated with this item:

  • Creative Commons
Open Access: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Open Access: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.