Qualitative and Psychometric Evaluation of 29-Item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® to Assess General Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate content validity and psychometric properties of the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) to determine its suitability in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinical trials. Methods Content validity of PROMIS-29 was evaluated using qualitative interviews, including concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing, among patients living with Crohn's disease (Crohn's disease n = 20) or ulcerative colitis (UC, n = 19). PROMIS-29 validity, reliability, and responsiveness were assessed using data from phase II clinical trials of Crohn's disease (N = 360) and UC (N = 518). Results Common (≥74%) symptoms reported in qualitative interviews were increased stool frequency, fatigue, abdominal pain/cramping, blood/mucus in stool, bowel urgency, and diarrhea. Disease impact aligned with PROMIS-29 content (depression, anxiety, physical function, pain interference, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles/activities). Cognitive debriefing indicated that PROMIS-29 instructions were easily understood, items were relevant, and the recall period was appropriate. Psychometric evaluations demonstrated that PROMIS-29 scores indicating worse symptoms/functioning were associated with lower health-related quality of life and greater disease activity and severity. PROMIS-29 domain scores correlated (r s ≥ 0.40) with IBD Questionnaire domains and EuroQol-5-Dimension-5-Level dimensions measuring similar concepts. Test-retest reliability among patients with stable disease was moderate-to-excellent (0.64-0.94) for nearly all domains in all studies. PROMIS-29 was responsive to change in disease status from baseline to week 12. Thresholds for clinically meaningful improvement ranged from ≥3 to ≥8, depending on domain. Conclusions PROMIS-29 is valid, reliable, and responsive for assessing general health-related quality of life and treatment response in IBD clinical trials.
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 | 0.070 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".