Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Mohamed, AF; Hauber, AB; Johnson, FR; Coon, CD
Published in: Patient
December 1, 2010

BACKGROUND: : Many patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments are scored by averaging or summing Likert category values over all items or domains of the elicitation instrument, yielding domain-specific scores or a total score for the entire instrument. OBJECTIVE: : To evaluate differences between conventional linear and preference-weighted scores for PRO instruments used in asthma, oncology, and obesity. METHODS: : We estimated preference-weighted scores for all the items and response categories in the Onset-of-Effect Questionnaire (OEQ), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30, and the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite version (IWQOL-Lite) using choice-format conjoint analysis, known also as discrete-choice experiments. RESULTS: : Conventional linear scoring rules can overstate the relative importance to patients of improvements in some domains and understate the relative importance of improvements in other domains. CONCLUSIONS: : Patient preference-weighted scores estimated by conjoint-analysis methods allow for non-linearities and account for the relative contribution of individual items and domains to patient well-being. Conventional linear scores and preference-weighted scores can result in different conclusions about the size of patient-reported treatment effects.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Patient

DOI

ISSN

1178-1653

Publication Date

December 1, 2010

Volume

3

Issue

4

Start / End Page

217 / 227

Location

New Zealand

Related Subject Headings

  • 42 Health sciences
  • 32 Biomedical and clinical sciences
  • 11 Medical and Health Sciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Mohamed, A. F., Hauber, A. B., Johnson, F. R., & Coon, C. D. (2010). Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes. Patient, 3(4), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.2165/11537880-000000000-00000
Mohamed, Ateesha F., A Brett Hauber, F Reed Johnson, and Cheryl D. Coon. “Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes.Patient 3, no. 4 (December 1, 2010): 217–27. https://doi.org/10.2165/11537880-000000000-00000.
Mohamed AF, Hauber AB, Johnson FR, Coon CD. Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes. Patient. 2010 Dec 1;3(4):217–27.
Mohamed, Ateesha F., et al. “Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes.Patient, vol. 3, no. 4, Dec. 2010, pp. 217–27. Pubmed, doi:10.2165/11537880-000000000-00000.
Mohamed AF, Hauber AB, Johnson FR, Coon CD. Patient preferences and linear scoring rules for patient-reported outcomes. Patient. 2010 Dec 1;3(4):217–227.
Journal cover image

Published In

Patient

DOI

ISSN

1178-1653

Publication Date

December 1, 2010

Volume

3

Issue

4

Start / End Page

217 / 227

Location

New Zealand

Related Subject Headings

  • 42 Health sciences
  • 32 Biomedical and clinical sciences
  • 11 Medical and Health Sciences