Content validation of the patient‐reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) framework in women with urinary incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess whether the existing National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) conceptual framework and item banks sufficiently capture the concerns of women with urinary incontinence (UI). METHODS: Thirty-five women with UI were recruited between February-April 2009 for 4 structured focus groups to develop and assess the content validity of a conceptual framework for the impact of UI. This framework included domains from the NIH PROMIS framework and item banks including broad domains of physical and social function and mental health. All sessions were transcribed, coded, and qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed using analytic induction and deductive analysis to identify new themes and domains relevant to women with UI. RESULTS: The focus groups provided information that confirmed the relevance of existing PROMIS domains and identified new outcome domains that are important to this patient population. The groups confirmed the relevance of the physical and social functioning, and mental health domains. Additional themes that emerged included the distinction between ability versus participation and satisfaction, role functioning, external mediators, re-calibration/coping, cognitive function and new possibilities. Participants also felt strongly that not all domains and items apply to all women with UI and an option to tailor questionnaires and skip non-relevant items was important. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS framework domains are relevant to women with UI, but additional patient-important themes are identified that may improve the comprehensiveness of this assessment framework for measuring outcomes important to women with UI. These results will inform future item content development for UI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.184 | 0.246 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".