Cited by 1,957Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePsychometric Methodologies and TestingCancer survivorship and care

Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items

Open access
Hays, Ron D., Bjorner, Jakob B., Revicki, Dennis A., Spritzer, Karen L., Cella, David·2009·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of global health items permits an efficient way of gathering general perceptions of health. These items provide useful summary information about health and are predictive of health care utilization and subsequent mortality. METHODS: Analyses of 10 self-reported global health items obtained from an internet survey as part of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) project. We derived summary scores from the global health items. We estimated the associations of the summary scores with the EQ-5D index score and the PROMIS physical function, pain, fatigue, emotional distress, and social health domain scores. RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a two-factor model. Global physical health (GPH; 4 items on overall physical health, physical function, pain, and fatigue) and global mental health (GMH; 4 items on quality of life, mental health, satisfaction with social activities, and emotional problems) scales were created. The scales had internal consistency reliability coefficients of 0.81 and 0.86, respectively. GPH correlated more strongly with the EQ-5D than did GMH (r = 0.76 vs. 0.59). GPH correlated most strongly with pain impact (r = -0.75) whereas GMH correlated most strongly with depressive symptoms (r = -0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Two dimensions representing physical and mental health underlie the global health items in PROMIS. These global health scales can be used to efficiently summarize physical and mental health in patient-reported outcome studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The PROMIS v2.0 summary health measures are more reliable than the PROMIS global health summary scores: 0.93 and 0.95 versus 0.79 for physical health, and 0.97 and 0.98 versus 0.86 for mental health.

    “First, the PROMIS v2.0 summary health measures are more reliable than the PROMIS global health summary scores (0.93 and 0.95 vs 0.79 for physical health and 0.0.97 and 0.98 vs 0.86 for mental health) [24, 36].”
  • Health and self-regulation outcomes were measured with validated instruments, including PROMIS, PSS, DERS, MAIA, FFMQ, SCS-SF, SECD-6, and PCQ, with reported internal consistencies.

    “Anxiety and depression were assessed using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety Short Form 8a (Cronbach's α = 0.92) 74,75 and PROMIS Depression Short Form 8a (α = 0.97).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • United BioSource Corporation (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Hays, Ron D.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2009-06-19
Volume
18
Issue
7
Pages
873-880
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2107748660
Cited by
1,957
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 179 · 2025: 248 · 2024: 248 · 2023: 221 · 2022: 199 · 2021: 242 · 2020: 145 · 2019: 129 · 2018: 90 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 9
FWCI
15.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Northwestern University (U01AR52177)
  • University of Washington (U01AR52170, U01AR52155, U01AR52171, U01AR52158)
  • University of Pittsburgh (U01AR52155, U01AR52158, U01AR52170, U01AR52171)
  • Stony Brook University (U01AR52170)
  • National Institutes of Health (4p20md000182-15, 5p20md000148-05, P30-AG02-1684, P20-MD000182, U01AR52171, U01AR52155)
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG021684)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (U01AR052171, U01AR052186, U01AR052170, U01AR052158, U01AR052155, U01AR052177, U01AR052181)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (P20-MD000148, P20-MD000182)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
PROMIS, patient-reported outcomes, factor structure, EQ-5D, pain, fatigue, depressive symptoms, quality of life, emotional distress, social health, scale development
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Health Status, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Internet, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review