Concept analysis of the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS(®)) and the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF).

PURPOSE: The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS (®) ) is a US National Institutes of Health initiative that has produced self-report outcome measures, using a framework of physical, mental, and social health defined by the World Health Organization in 1948 (WHO, in Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 1948). The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is a comprehensive classification system of health and health-related domains that was put forward in 2001. The purpose of this report is to compare and contrast PROMIS and ICF conceptual frameworks to support mapping of PROMIS instruments to the ICF classification system . METHODS: We assessed the objectives and the classification schema of the PROMIS and ICF frameworks, followed by content analysis to determine whether PROMIS domain and sub-domain level health concepts can be linked to the ICF classification. RESULTS: Both PROMIS and ICF are relevant to all individuals, irrespective of the presence of health conditions, person characteristics, or environmental factors in which persons live. PROMIS measures are intended to assess a person's experiences of his or her health, functional status, and well-being in multiple domains across physical, mental, and social dimensions. The ICF comprehensively describes human functioning from a biological, individual, and social perspective. The ICF supports classification of health and health-related states such as functioning, but is not a specific measure or assessment of health, per se. PROMIS domains and sub-domain concepts can be meaningfully mapped to ICF concepts. CONCLUSIONS: Theoretical and conceptual similarities support the use of PROMIS instruments to operationalize self-reported measurement for many body function, activity and participation ICF concepts, as well as several environmental factor concepts. Differences observed in PROMIS and ICF conceptual frameworks provide a stimulus for future research and development.

Including information about co-morbidity in estimates of disease burden: results from the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys.

BACKGROUND: The methodology commonly used to estimate disease burden, featuring ratings of severity of individual conditions, has been criticized for ignoring co-morbidity. A methodology that addresses this problem is proposed and illustrated here with data from the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. Although the analysis is based on self-reports about one's own conditions in a community survey, the logic applies equally well to analysis of hypothetical vignettes describing co-morbid condition profiles. METHOD: Face-to-face interviews in 13 countries (six developing, nine developed; n=31 067; response rate=69.6%) assessed 10 classes of chronic physical and nine of mental conditions. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess overall perceived health. Multiple regression analysis with interactions for co-morbidity was used to estimate associations of conditions with VAS. Simulation was used to estimate condition-specific effects. RESULTS: The best-fitting model included condition main effects and interactions of types by numbers of conditions. Neurological conditions, insomnia and major depression were rated most severe. Adjustment for co-morbidity reduced condition-specific estimates with substantial between-condition variation (0.24-0.70 ratios of condition-specific estimates with and without adjustment for co-morbidity). The societal-level burden rankings were quite different from the individual-level rankings, with the highest societal-level rankings associated with conditions having high prevalence rather than high individual-level severity. CONCLUSIONS: Plausible estimates of disorder-specific effects on VAS can be obtained using methods that adjust for co-morbidity. These adjustments substantially influence condition-specific ratings.

Mixed anxiety-depression in a 1 year follow-up study: shift to other diagnoses or remission?

BACKGROUND: In 1992, the ICD-10 introduced the concept of mixed anxiety-depression disorder (MAD). However, a study examining the stability of this ICD-10-diagnosis is lacking. Our objective was to examine the 12 month outcome of MAD in comparison to the outcome of depression, anxiety, and comorbid depression and anxiety. METHODS: 85 MAD patients, 496 patients with major depression, 296 patients with anxiety disorders, and 306 comorbid patients were reassessed after 12 months. Rates of depression, anxiety, and MAD were compared using chi(2)-tests. RESULTS: While depressive disorders and anxiety disorders showed relatively high stability, MAD Patients had no higher rates of MAD at follow-up than patients with depression, anxiety or both. LIMITATIONS: Detailed information regarding treatment and disorders during the follow-up interval was lacking. Prevalence rates of MAD in single centres were too small for contrasting centres. CONCLUSIONS: MAD cannot be seen as a stable diagnosis: Most of MAD patients remit; many of them shift to other diagnoses than depression or anxiety. The ICD-10 criteria have to be specified more exactly.