↓ Skip to main content

The case for an international patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) initiative

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The case for an international patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) initiative
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-11-210
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jordi Alonso, Susan J Bartlett, Matthias Rose, Neil K Aaronson, John E Chaplin, Fabio Efficace, Alain Leplège, Aiping LU, David S Tulsky, Hein Raat, Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, Dennis Revicki, Caroline B Terwee, Jose M Valderas, David Cella, Christopher B Forrest, for the PROMIS International group

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play an increasingly important role in clinical practice and research. Modern psychometric methods such as item response theory (IRT) enable the creation of item banks that support fixed-length forms as well as computerized adaptive testing (CAT), often resulting in improved measurement precision and responsiveness. Here we describe and discuss the case for developing an international core set of PROs building from the US PROMIS® network.PROMIS is a U.S.-based cooperative group of research sites and centers of excellence convened to develop and standardize PRO measures across studies and settings. If extended to a global collaboration, PROMIS has the potential to transform PRO measurement by creating a shared, unifying terminology and metric for reporting of common symptoms and functional life domains. Extending a common set of standardized PRO measures to the international community offers great potential for improving patient-centered research, clinical trials reporting, population monitoring, and health care worldwide. Benefits of such standardization include the possibility of: international syntheses (such as meta-analyses) of research findings; international population monitoring and policy development; health services administrators and planners access to relevant information on the populations they serve; better assessment and monitoring of patients by providers; and improved shared decision making.The goal of the current PROMIS International initiative is to ensure that item banks are translated and culturally adapted for use in adults and children in as many countries as possible. The process includes 3 key steps: translation/cultural adaptation, calibration, and validation. A universal translation, an approach focusing on commonalities, rather than differences across versions developed in regions or countries speaking the same language, is proposed to ensure conceptual equivalence for all items. International item calibration using nationally representative samples of adults and children within countries is essential to demonstrate that all items possess expected strong measurement properties. Finally, it is important to demonstrate that the PROMIS measures are valid, reliable and responsive to change when used in an international context.IRT item banking will allow for tailoring within countries and facilitate growth and evolution of PROs through contributions from the international measurement community. A number of opportunities and challenges of international development of PROs item banks are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 184 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 16%
Student > Master 29 15%
Other 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 27 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 35%
Psychology 25 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 12%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 38 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2014.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,820
of 2,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,801
of 320,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#17
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.