Abstract: Purpose: Preference-based summary scores are used to quantify values, differences, and changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that can be used for cost-effectiveness analyses. The PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) measure is a preference-based summary score comprised of 7 PROMIS domains. The PROMIS-16 is a new PROMIS profile instrument. We evaluated the measurement properties of PROPr generated from the widely used PROMIS-29 + 2 compared with the PROMIS-16. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from an online survey of the general US population, with a longitudinal subsample who reported back pain. The survey included both the PROMIS-16 and the PROMIS-29 + 2 profiles. PROPr scores were calculated from each profile and compared by the distribution of scores, overall mean scores, product-moment correlations with pain measure scores (Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Pain Intensity, Interference with Enjoyment of Life, Interference with General Activity Scale, and Graded Chronic Pain Scale), and difference in mean scores in subgroups with 13 chronic health conditions (Cohen’s d). Results: Of the 4,115 participants in the baseline survey, 1,533 with any reported back pain were invited for the 6-month follow-up survey and 1,256 completed it. At baseline, the overall mean (SD) PROPr score was 0.532 (0.240) from PROMIS-16 and 0.535 (0.250) from PROMIS 29 + 2. At both time points, the correlations of PROPr scores with physical and mental health summary scores from the PROMIS-29 and 4 pain scales were within 0.01 between profiles. Using subgroups with chronic health conditions and comparing between profiles, Cohen’s d estimates of the difference in effect size were small (< 0.2). Conclusion: PROPr scores from the 16-item PROMIS profile measure are similar to PROPr scores from the longer PROMIS-29 + 2.

With more disease- and symptom-specific measures available and research pointing to increased usefulness, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be routinely used in clinical care. PROMs increase efficiency in healthcare, improve the clinician-patient relationship, and increase patient satisfaction with their care. PROMs can be administered before, during, and after clinic visits using paper-and-pencil, mobile phones, tablets, and computers. Herein, we combine available literature with expert views to discuss overcoming barriers and helping dermatologists incorporate PROMs into routine patient-centered care. We believe dermatology patients will benefit from broader PROM implementation and routine clinical use. However, a few major barriers exist: (1) cost to implement the technology, (2) selecting the right PROMs for each disease, and (3) helping both patients and clinicians understand how PROMs add to and complement their current clinical experience. We provide recommendations to assist dermatologists when considering whether to implement PROMs in their practices.