Showing papers by "James F. Fries published in 2011"

Compression of morbidity 1980-2011: a focused review of paradigms and progress.

Abstract: The Compression of Morbidity hypothesis-positing that the age of onset of chronic illness may be postponed more than the age at death and squeezing most of the morbidity in life into a shorter period with less lifetime disability-was introduced by our group in 1980. This paper is focused upon the evolution of the concept, the controversies and responses, the supportive multidisciplinary science, and the evolving lines of evidence that establish proof of concept. We summarize data from 20-year prospective longitudinal studies of lifestyle progression of disability, national population studies of trends in disability, and randomized controlled trials of risk factor reduction with life-style-based "healthy aging" interventions. From the perspective of this influential and broadly cited paradigm, we review its current history, the development of a theoretical structure for healthy aging, and the challenges to develop coherent health policies directed at reduction in morbidity.

Improved responsiveness and reduced sample size requirements of PROMIS physical function scales with item response theory.

Abstract: The Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ) and the SF-36 PF-10, among other instruments, yield sensitive and valid Disability (Physical Function) endpoints. Modern techniques, such as Item Response Theory (IRT), now enable development of more precise instruments using improved items. The NIH Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is charged with developing improved IRT-based tools. We compared the ability to detect change in physical function using original (Legacy) instruments with Item-Improved and PROMIS IRT-based instruments. We studied two Legacy (original) Physical Function/Disability instruments (HAQ, PF-10), their item-improved derivatives (Item-Improved HAQ and PF-10), and the IRT-based PROMIS Physical Function 10- (PROMIS PF 10) and 20-item (PROMIS PF 20) instruments. We compared sensitivity to detect 12-month changes in physical function in 451 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and assessed relative responsiveness using P-values, effect sizes (ES), and sample size requirements. The study sample was 81% female, 87% Caucasian, 65 years of age, had 14 years of education, and had moderate baseline disability. All instruments were sensitive to detecting change (< 0.05) in physical function over one year. The most responsive instruments in these patients were the Item-Improved HAQ and the PROMIS PF 20. IRT-improved instruments could detect a 1.2% difference with 80% power, while reference instruments could detect only a 2.3% difference (P < 0.01). The best IRT-based instruments required only one-quarter of the sample sizes of the Legacy (PF-10) comparator (95 versus 427). The HAQ outperformed the PF-10 in more impaired populations; the reverse was true in more normal populations. Considering especially the range of severity measured, the PROMIS PF 20 appears the most responsive instrument. Physical Function scales using item improved or IRT-based items can result in greater responsiveness and precision across a broader range of physical function. This can reduce sample size requirements and thus study costs.

The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and Internet administration.

Abstract: Objective. Use of item response theory (IRT) and, subsequently, computerized adaptive testing (CAT), under the umbrella of the NIH-PROMIS initiative (National Institutes of Health – Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System), to bring strong new assets to the development of more sensitive, more widely applicable, and more efficiently administered patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. We present data on current progress in 3 crucial areas: floor and ceiling effects, responsiveness to change, and interactive computer-based administration over the Internet. Methods. We examined nearly 1000 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and related diseases in a series of studies including a one-year longitudinal examination of detection of change; compared responsiveness of the Legacy SF-36 and HAQ-DI instruments with IRT-based instruments; performed a randomized head-to-head trial of 4 modes of item administration; and simulated the effect of lack of floor and ceiling items upon statistical power and sample sizes. Results. IRT-based PROMIS instruments are more sensitive to change, resulting in the potential to reduce sample size requirements substantially by up to a factor of 4. The modes of administration tested did not differ from each other in any instance by more than one-tenth of a standard deviation. Floor and ceiling effects greatly reduce the number of available subjects, particularly at the ceiling. Conclusion. Failure to adequately address floor and ceiling effects, which determine the range of an instrument, can result in suboptimal assessment of many patients. Improved items, improved instruments, and computer-based administration improve PRO assessment and represent a fundamental advance in clinical outcomes research.

Patient perspective: choosing or developing instruments.

Abstract: Previous Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) meetings recognized that patients view outcomes of intervention from a different perspective. This preconference position paper briefly sets out 2 patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument approaches, the PROMISE computer adaptive testing (CAT) system and development of a rheumatoid arthritis-specific questionnaire to measure fatigue; a tentative proposal for a PRO instrument development pathway is also made.

Patient perspective workshop: moving towards OMERACT guidelines for choosing or developing instruments to measure patient-reported outcomes.

Abstract: The workshop Choosing or Developing Instruments held at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 10 meeting was designed to help participants think about the underlying methods of instrument development. Conference pre-reading material and 3 brief introductory presentations elaborated the issues, and participants broke into discussion groups before reconvening to share insights, engage in a more general discussion of the issues, and vote on recommendations. Tradeoffs between using current imperfect measures and the long and complex process of developing new instruments were considered, together with the need for rigor in patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument development. The main considerations for PRO instrument development were listed and a research agenda for action produced. As part of the agenda for action, it is recommended that researchers and patient partners work together to tackle these issues, and that OMERACT bring forward proposals for acceptable instrument development protocols that would meet an enhanced "Truth" statement in the OMERACT Filter.