Estimates of Minimally Important Differences (MIDs) for Two Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Computer-Adaptive Tests in Chronic Pain Patients

Eric Swanholm, Wade Mcdonald, Una Makris, Carl Noe, Robert Gatchel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Anchor- and distribution-based methods were combined to evaluate and establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for two Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in an outpatient chronic pain population. These included the computer-adaptive test (CAT) versions of two PROMIS measures: Depressive Symptoms and Anxiety-Related Symptoms (PROMIS; Cella, Gershon, Lai & Choi). Participants (n=170) undergoing a behavioral medicine evaluation in an interdisciplinary pain management clinic completed two PROMIS CATs and multiple clinical anchor measures/questions. Modeled after similar analyses (Yost, Eton, Garcia, & Cella), three a priori criteria were used to select usable cross-sectional anchor-based MID estimates; these included a minimum Spearman correlation of .3 between the PROMIS measure and anchor item/categories, a minimum comparison group sample size of 10 within each anchor, and an effect size between .2 and .8 for each anchor-based estimate. For each PROMIS measure, the mean standard error of measurement was calculated and incorporated into MID analyses. Using a large sample (n=170), a number of the cross-sectional T-score anchor-based MID estimates (57%) were not included due to failure to meet a priori criteria. Based on the analyses, the following T-score MID ranges are recommended: Depression CAT (3.5-5.5) and Anxiety CAT (3.0-5.5). The average effect sizes for MID estimates ranged from .32 to .57. This study is among the first to address MIDs for PROMIS measures; it is the first study to establish usable MIDs for psychological symptoms on outpatients with chronic/persistent pain. The results may be used to gauge minimally important clinical difference and/or treatment response for individuals within this patient population. MIDs for PROs are particularly useful when treatment responses are significant to the patient but are difficult to evaluate during the clinical visit.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)217-232
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Applied Biobehavioral Research
Volume19
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2014

Fingerprint

Information Systems
Chronic Pain
pain
information system
Outpatients
Anxiety
Depression
Behavioral Medicine
Pain Clinics
CAT
anxiety
Pain Management
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Sample Size
Population
Psychology
medicine
Therapeutics
evaluation
management

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Cultural Studies

Cite this

@article{95662158c6b34cce94e1f799186f3068,
title = "Estimates of Minimally Important Differences (MIDs) for Two Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Computer-Adaptive Tests in Chronic Pain Patients",
abstract = "Anchor- and distribution-based methods were combined to evaluate and establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for two Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in an outpatient chronic pain population. These included the computer-adaptive test (CAT) versions of two PROMIS measures: Depressive Symptoms and Anxiety-Related Symptoms (PROMIS; Cella, Gershon, Lai & Choi). Participants (n=170) undergoing a behavioral medicine evaluation in an interdisciplinary pain management clinic completed two PROMIS CATs and multiple clinical anchor measures/questions. Modeled after similar analyses (Yost, Eton, Garcia, & Cella), three a priori criteria were used to select usable cross-sectional anchor-based MID estimates; these included a minimum Spearman correlation of .3 between the PROMIS measure and anchor item/categories, a minimum comparison group sample size of 10 within each anchor, and an effect size between .2 and .8 for each anchor-based estimate. For each PROMIS measure, the mean standard error of measurement was calculated and incorporated into MID analyses. Using a large sample (n=170), a number of the cross-sectional T-score anchor-based MID estimates (57{\%}) were not included due to failure to meet a priori criteria. Based on the analyses, the following T-score MID ranges are recommended: Depression CAT (3.5-5.5) and Anxiety CAT (3.0-5.5). The average effect sizes for MID estimates ranged from .32 to .57. This study is among the first to address MIDs for PROMIS measures; it is the first study to establish usable MIDs for psychological symptoms on outpatients with chronic/persistent pain. The results may be used to gauge minimally important clinical difference and/or treatment response for individuals within this patient population. MIDs for PROs are particularly useful when treatment responses are significant to the patient but are difficult to evaluate during the clinical visit.",
author = "Eric Swanholm and Wade Mcdonald and Una Makris and Carl Noe and Robert Gatchel",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jabr.12026",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "217--232",
journal = "Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research",
issn = "1071-2089",
publisher = "Bellwether Publishing, Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Estimates of Minimally Important Differences (MIDs) for Two Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Computer-Adaptive Tests in Chronic Pain Patients

AU - Swanholm, Eric

AU - Mcdonald, Wade

AU - Makris, Una

AU - Noe, Carl

AU - Gatchel, Robert

PY - 2014/12/1

Y1 - 2014/12/1

N2 - Anchor- and distribution-based methods were combined to evaluate and establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for two Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in an outpatient chronic pain population. These included the computer-adaptive test (CAT) versions of two PROMIS measures: Depressive Symptoms and Anxiety-Related Symptoms (PROMIS; Cella, Gershon, Lai & Choi). Participants (n=170) undergoing a behavioral medicine evaluation in an interdisciplinary pain management clinic completed two PROMIS CATs and multiple clinical anchor measures/questions. Modeled after similar analyses (Yost, Eton, Garcia, & Cella), three a priori criteria were used to select usable cross-sectional anchor-based MID estimates; these included a minimum Spearman correlation of .3 between the PROMIS measure and anchor item/categories, a minimum comparison group sample size of 10 within each anchor, and an effect size between .2 and .8 for each anchor-based estimate. For each PROMIS measure, the mean standard error of measurement was calculated and incorporated into MID analyses. Using a large sample (n=170), a number of the cross-sectional T-score anchor-based MID estimates (57%) were not included due to failure to meet a priori criteria. Based on the analyses, the following T-score MID ranges are recommended: Depression CAT (3.5-5.5) and Anxiety CAT (3.0-5.5). The average effect sizes for MID estimates ranged from .32 to .57. This study is among the first to address MIDs for PROMIS measures; it is the first study to establish usable MIDs for psychological symptoms on outpatients with chronic/persistent pain. The results may be used to gauge minimally important clinical difference and/or treatment response for individuals within this patient population. MIDs for PROs are particularly useful when treatment responses are significant to the patient but are difficult to evaluate during the clinical visit.

AB - Anchor- and distribution-based methods were combined to evaluate and establish minimally important differences (MIDs) for two Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in an outpatient chronic pain population. These included the computer-adaptive test (CAT) versions of two PROMIS measures: Depressive Symptoms and Anxiety-Related Symptoms (PROMIS; Cella, Gershon, Lai & Choi). Participants (n=170) undergoing a behavioral medicine evaluation in an interdisciplinary pain management clinic completed two PROMIS CATs and multiple clinical anchor measures/questions. Modeled after similar analyses (Yost, Eton, Garcia, & Cella), three a priori criteria were used to select usable cross-sectional anchor-based MID estimates; these included a minimum Spearman correlation of .3 between the PROMIS measure and anchor item/categories, a minimum comparison group sample size of 10 within each anchor, and an effect size between .2 and .8 for each anchor-based estimate. For each PROMIS measure, the mean standard error of measurement was calculated and incorporated into MID analyses. Using a large sample (n=170), a number of the cross-sectional T-score anchor-based MID estimates (57%) were not included due to failure to meet a priori criteria. Based on the analyses, the following T-score MID ranges are recommended: Depression CAT (3.5-5.5) and Anxiety CAT (3.0-5.5). The average effect sizes for MID estimates ranged from .32 to .57. This study is among the first to address MIDs for PROMIS measures; it is the first study to establish usable MIDs for psychological symptoms on outpatients with chronic/persistent pain. The results may be used to gauge minimally important clinical difference and/or treatment response for individuals within this patient population. MIDs for PROs are particularly useful when treatment responses are significant to the patient but are difficult to evaluate during the clinical visit.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84913543669&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84913543669&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jabr.12026

DO - 10.1111/jabr.12026

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84913543669

VL - 19

SP - 217

EP - 232

JO - Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research

JF - Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research

SN - 1071-2089

IS - 4

ER -