UCLA Department of Medicine

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Supported by grants from: National Human Genome Research Institute (ELSI) HG/AG (The REVEAL Study); National Institute on Aging AG (The MIRAGE.
Advertisements

Effects of Mode and Order of Administration on Generic HRQOL Scores? Ron D. Hays, Seong Eun Kim, Karen Spritzer, and Honghu Liu UCLA 1:00-2:00 pm.
1 5/21/2015 Cigarette Smoking and Health-Related Quality of Life in Medicare Beneficiaries Ron D. Hays ISOQOL October 13, 2007.
Effect of Physician Asthma Education on Health Care Utilization of Children at Different Income Levels Randall Brown, Noreen Clark, Niko Kaciroti, Molly.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence January–February 2011.
1 Health-Related Quality of Life Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. - UCLA Department of Medicine: Division of General Internal Medicine.
The Life Story of Ron Hays UCLA GIM/HSR Introduction to Fellows August 7, 2009 ~ 12:42 pm.
1 10/11/2015 Cigarette Smoking and Health-Related Quality of Life in Medicare Beneficiaries Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA GIM/HSR October 5, 2007 (12-1pm)
1 Assessing the Minimally Important Difference in Health-Related Quality of Life Scores Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine October 25, 2006,
BACKGROUND STUDY AIMS Contact : Gustavo Medrano at FOR INFORMATION DESCRIPTIVES Child and Parent Health-Related Quality of Life in Families.
High rates of attrition exist among college students in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields, especially among women and minorities.
Another Perspective on PRO Content in Clinical Practice Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles June 25, 2007.
Measurement Issues by Ron D. Hays UCLA Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research (June 30, 2008, 4:55-5:35pm) Diabetes & Obesity.
1 Improving SUD Continuity of Care: Bringing Science to Practice Steven J. Lash, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Science, Salem.
Relational Discord at Conclusion of Treatment Predicts Future Substance Use for Partnered Patients Wayne H. Denton, MD, PhD; Paul A. Nakonezny, PhD; Bryon.
Matthew Schill, BS, Debbie Tiemann, RN, Mary Klingensmith, MD, L. Michael Brunt, MD Department of Surgery and Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery.
Highlights of Current Research Ron Hays UCLA GIM/HSR Introduction to Fellows August 10, 2007 ~ 12:19 pm.
School of Nursing Health Literacy Among Informal Caregivers of Persons With Memory Loss Judith A. Erlen, PhD, RN, FAAN; Jennifer H. Lingler, PhD, RN; Lisa.
Considerations in Comparing Groups of People with PROs Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine May 6, 2008, 3:45-5:00pm ISPOR, Toronto, Canada.
Patient-Reported Physical Functioning Ron D. Hays November 27, 2012 (11:15-11:30) UCLA Department of Medicine MCID for Orthopaedic Devices Silver Springs,
Advancing Knowledge to Improve Health Evaluation of the Effects of Complex Care Management on Health-Related Quality of Life within a Medicaid Population.
1 Janine M. Jurkowski, PhD * Dayna M. Maniccia, MS * Steven J. Samuels, PhD * Deborah A. Spicer, MPH § Barbara A. Dennison, MD §* * University at Albany,
Progress and future developments
Evaluating Patient-Reports about Health
Aka STEEL VALLEY SENIORS SURVEY (SVSS)
Welcome Clinical Trials October 11, 2016 Vernon M. Chinchilli, PhD
PHASA Conference September 2016
SESRI Workshop on Survey-based Experiments
You've got mail: Using to recruit a representative cohort for a healthy lifestyles research study Kayla Confer, BS1, Jessica Garber, MPH1, Jody.
Psychometric Evaluation of Items Ron D. Hays
Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire
Quality of Physician-Patient Communication during Hospitalization
UCLA CMORE Lecture Series
Disparities in process and outcome measures among adults with persistent asthma David M. Mosen, PhD, MPH; Michael Schatz, MD, MS; Rachel Gold, PhD; Winston.
Patient Registries and Health Outcomes in Diabetes: A Retrospective Study Nipa Shah, MD1; Fern Webb, PhD1; Liane Hannah, BSH1; Carmen Smotherman, MS2;
Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence
Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine
Evaluating Patient-Reports about Health
UCLA Department of Medicine
PROMIS-29 V2.0 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scores Ron D. Hays
Preliminary reliability and validity of an opioid overdose risk behavior scale in a community-based sample of recent veterans E.R. Pouget, A.S. Bennett,
SESRI Workshop on Survey-based Experiments
Heart Failure/Late Problems: End of Life Care: Psychology
Acute Assessment of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury with the King-Devick Test in an Emergency Department Sample Objectives Results The MTBI and trauma control.
Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment in Outcome Studies
CADENZA Symposium October, 2010
Outcomes from the AHA Check. Change
Management of Type II Diabetes
Proportion of patients reporting scores ≥age-matched and gender-matched normative PRO values at baseline and 24 weeks in the (A) AMBITION and (B) ADACTA.
Mean change in patient-reported outcomes from baseline to Week 25 with biweekly or monthly pegloticase compared with placebo. Mean change in patient-reported.
Annals of Internal Medicine • Vol. 167 No. 12 • 19 December 2017
Financial Disclosures
Socio-Demographic Data by Age, Gender and Ethnicity
Decreasing Compassion Fatigue In Cardiovascular Intensive Care Nurses Through Self-Care and Mindfulness Staci Abernathy, MSN, CPNP-AC, DNP Student, Rebecca.
Patient-reported outcomes: proportion of patients with clinically meaningful improvements in (A) SF-36 PCS and MCS at Week 52 and Week 104*†‡ and (B) HAQ-DI.
Impact of Mode and Order of Administration on Generic HRQOL Scores
Evaluating Multi-item Scales
Health-Related Quality of Life Measures (HS249T: Decision Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Division.
Mean individual and summative SF-36 V2 scores before and 3 months after ablation. Mean individual and summative SF-36 V2 scores before and 3 months after.
Evaluating Multi-item Scales
Estimating Minimally Important Differences (MIDs)
Division of Nursing and The Division of Clinical Support Services
Psychometric testing and validation (Multi-trait scaling and IRT)
Introduction to Psychometric Analysis of Survey Data
Evaluating the Significance of Individual Change
GIM & HSR Research Seminar: October 5, 2018
UCLA Department of Medicine
How to Measure Quality of Life
Patient-reported Outcome Measures
Kaplan-Meier survival curves and the log rank test
Presentation transcript:

UCLA Department of Medicine Evaluation of Mode (Mail vs. Phone administration) Effects for Generic Health-Related Quality of Life Measures in Clinical Outcomes and Measurement of Health Study (COMHS) Ron D. Hays, Ph.D. UCLA Department of Medicine The Dixie Chicks were right.

Acknowledgements P01 grant (AG020679-01) from the National Institute on Aging (D. Fryback, PI) Coauthors: Seongeun Kim, Karen L. Spritzer, Robert Kaplan, Steve Tally, David Feeny, Honghu Liu, Dennis Fryback Fryback, D. G., Dunham, N. C., Palta, M., Hanmer, J., Buechner, J., Cherepanov, D., Herrington, S., Hays, R. D., Kaplan, R. M., Ganiats, T. G., Feeny, D., & Kind, P. (2007). U.S. Norms for Six Generic Health-Related Quality-of-Life Indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Medical Care, 45, 1162-1170. Hanmer, J., Hays, R. D., & Fryback, D. G. (2007). Mode of administration is important in U. S. national estimates of health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 45, 1171-1179.

Prior Research on Mode of Administration Effects Telephone yields more positive HRQOL than mail administration “Excellent” health reported by 30% in self-administration, 37% by phone and 44% in a face-to-face interview (Hochstim, 1967) SF-36 (McHorney et al., 1994; Weinberger et al., 1996; Jones et al., 2001) HUI3 was 0.05 (0.25 SD) higher for phone than mail (Hanmer et al., 2007)

Health-Related Quality of Life Measures SF-36v2TM PCS ( 6.6 -> 71.8) MCS ( 5.7 -> 71.0) SF-6D (0.30 -> 1.00) EQ-5D (-0.11 -> 1.00) QWB (0.09 ->1.00) HUI HUI2 (-0.03 –> 1.00) HUI3 (-0.36 –> 1.00)

Cross-over Design Self-administration (mail) of HRQOL measures at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post-baseline. At 6 months, additional administration by telephone, with participants randomized to order of mail/phone administration Differences in days between survey dates 61% were within 3 weeks (maximum = 213 days)

Sample 535 patients (159 entering a heart failure program, 376 scheduled for cataract survey) from UCSD, UCLA, and University of Wisconsin 447 patients (84%) at 6 months followup: 121 heart failure 326 cataract surgery Mean age ~ 66 (36-91 range) ~ 53% female, 86% white, 26% high school education or less

Mean Differences Repeated measures mixed model with random intercepts Controlling for fixed effects: Gender Age (35-44, 45-64, 65+) Race (White vs. Non-white) Education (1-11th grade, high school, some college, 4 year college+) Site/disease (UCSD, UCLA, Wisconsin by heart failure and cataract).

Means for Mail by Order of Administration Mail (1) before phone Mail (2) after phone MCS 51b 50b PCS 41b,c 40c SF-6D 0.70b 0.69b QWB 0.61a 0.59a,b EQ-5D 0.79b,c 0.77c HUI-2 0.80b 0.79b HUI-3 0.68b 0.67b

Means for Phone by Order of Administration Phone (1) before phone Phone (2) after mail MCS 53a 54a PCS 41a,b 43a SF-6D 0.74a 0.75a QWB 0.58b 0.60a,b EQ-5D 0.82a,b 0.85a HUI-2 0.80a,b 0.83a HUI-3 0.73a 0.78a

Mail Versus Phone Means on Initial Administration Mail (1) before phone Phone (1) before mail MCS 51b 53a ↑ PCS 41b,c 41a,b SF-6D 0.70b 0.74a ↑ QWB 0.61a 0.58b ↓ EQ-5D 0.79b,c 0.82a,b HUI-2 0.80b 0.80a,b HUI-3 0.68b 0.73a ↑

Mail Versus Phone Means on 2nd Administration Mail (2) after phone Phone (2) after mail MCS 50b 54a ↑ PCS 40c 43a ↑ SF-6D 0.69b 0.75a ↑ QWB 0.59a,b 0.60a,b EQ-5D 0.77c 0.85a ↑ HUI-2 0.79b 0.83a ↑ HUI-3 0.67b 0.78a ↑

Means by Mode and Order MCS 50b 51b 53a 54a PCS 40c 41b,c 41a,b 43a Mail (2) after phone (n = 178) Mail (1) before phone (n = 222) Phone (1) before mail (n = 225) Phone (2) after mail (n = 177) MCS 50b 51b 53a 54a PCS 40c 41b,c 41a,b 43a SF-6D 0.69b 0.70b 0.74a 0.75a QWB 0.59a,b 0.61a 0.58b 0.60a,b EQ-5D 0.77c 0.79b,c 0.82a,b 0.85a HUI-2 0.79b 0.80b 0.80a,b 0.83a HUI-3 0.67b 0.68b 0.73a 0.78a

Maximum Differences by HRQOL Measure Max. Difference ES SF-6D 6 0.5 EQ-5D 8 MCS 4 0.4 PCS HUI3 10 HUI2 0.2 QWB 3

Mean difference vs. Correlation ES--maximum difference Pearson (ICC) Rank of ICC SF-6D 0.5 0.76 (0.76) 2 EQ-5D 0.73 (0.73) 3 MCS 0.4 0.64 (0.63) 5.5 PCS 0.84 (0.83) 1 HUI3 0.69 (0.68) 4 HUI2 0.2 0.59 (0.59) 7 QWB 0.63 (0.63)

Summary of Results * The most positive HRQOL scores occur when measures administered by phone after a mail administration * The least positive scores occur by mail after a phone administration. Effect sizes range from small to medium * Correlations (individual level) tell somewhat different story than mean differences (group) by mode * Caution warranted in comparing HRQOL estimates that differ by mode and/or order of administration

Questions?

SF-36 Means by Group

EQ-5D Means by Group

HUI Means by Group