A person-reported cumulative social risk measure does not show bias by income and education.

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1186/s41687-024-00772-2
Salene M W Jones, Katherine J Briant, David R Doody, Ronaldo Iachan, Jason A Mendoza
{"title":"A person-reported cumulative social risk measure does not show bias by income and education.","authors":"Salene M W Jones, Katherine J Briant, David R Doody, Ronaldo Iachan, Jason A Mendoza","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00772-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Social risk such as housing instability, trouble affording medical care and food insecurity are a downstream effect of social determinants of health (SDOHs) and are frequently associated with worse health. SDOHs include experiences of racism, sexism and other discrimination as well as differences in income and education. The collective effects of each social risk a person reports are called cumulative social risk. Cumulative social risk has traditionally been measured through counts or sum scores that treat each social risk as equivalent. We have proposed to use item response theory (IRT) as an alternative measure of person-reported cumulative social risk as IRT accounts for the severity in each risk and allows for more efficient screening with computerized adaptive testing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a differential item functioning (DIF) analysis comparing IRT-based person-reported cumulative social risk scores by income and education in a population-based sample (n = 2122). Six social risk items were analyzed using the two-parameter logistic model and graded response model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analyses showed no DIF on an IRT-based cumulative social risk score by education level for the six items examined. Statistically significant DIF was found on three items by income level but the ultimate effect on the scores was negligible.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results suggest an IRT-based cumulative social risk score is not biased by education and income level and can be used for comparisons between groups. An IRT-based cumulative social risk score will be useful for combining datasets to examine policy factors affecting social risk and for more efficient screening of patients for social risk using computerized adaptive testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"8 1","pages":"90"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11319681/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00772-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Social risk such as housing instability, trouble affording medical care and food insecurity are a downstream effect of social determinants of health (SDOHs) and are frequently associated with worse health. SDOHs include experiences of racism, sexism and other discrimination as well as differences in income and education. The collective effects of each social risk a person reports are called cumulative social risk. Cumulative social risk has traditionally been measured through counts or sum scores that treat each social risk as equivalent. We have proposed to use item response theory (IRT) as an alternative measure of person-reported cumulative social risk as IRT accounts for the severity in each risk and allows for more efficient screening with computerized adaptive testing.

Methods: We conducted a differential item functioning (DIF) analysis comparing IRT-based person-reported cumulative social risk scores by income and education in a population-based sample (n = 2122). Six social risk items were analyzed using the two-parameter logistic model and graded response model.

Results: Analyses showed no DIF on an IRT-based cumulative social risk score by education level for the six items examined. Statistically significant DIF was found on three items by income level but the ultimate effect on the scores was negligible.

Conclusions: Results suggest an IRT-based cumulative social risk score is not biased by education and income level and can be used for comparisons between groups. An IRT-based cumulative social risk score will be useful for combining datasets to examine policy factors affecting social risk and for more efficient screening of patients for social risk using computerized adaptive testing.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
由个人报告的累积社会风险衡量标准不会因收入和教育程度而出现偏差。
背景:住房不稳定、难以负担医疗费用和粮食不安全等社会风险是健康的社会决定因素(SDOHs)的下游效应,通常与健康状况恶化有关。社会决定健康因素包括种族主义、性别歧视和其他歧视,以及收入和教育方面的差异。一个人报告的每个社会风险的集体影响被称为累积性社会风险。传统上,累积性社会风险是通过将每种社会风险视为等同的计数或总分来衡量的。我们建议使用项目反应理论(IRT)作为个人报告的累积社会风险的替代测量方法,因为 IRT 会考虑到每种风险的严重程度,并允许使用计算机适应性测试进行更有效的筛选:我们在一个以人口为基础的样本(n = 2122)中进行了一项差异项目功能(DIF)分析,比较了基于 IRT 的个人报告的累积社会风险得分(按收入和教育程度划分)。采用双参数逻辑模型和分级反应模型对六个社会风险项目进行了分析:分析表明,在基于 IRT 的累积社会风险得分上,所研究的六个项目的教育水平均无 DIF。收入水平对三个项目的 DIF 有统计学意义,但对分数的最终影响可以忽略不计:结果表明,基于 IRT 的累积社会风险评分不会因教育和收入水平而产生偏差,可用于组间比较。基于 IRT 的累积社会风险评分将有助于结合数据集来研究影响社会风险的政策因素,并有助于利用计算机自适应测试对患者进行更有效的社会风险筛查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Anthropometric estimates can predict satisfaction with breast in a population of asymptomatic women. How to interpret patient-reported outcomes? - Stratified adjusted minimal important changes for the EQ-5D-3L in hip and knee replacement patients. Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on outpatient psychiatric population well-being and symptomology utilizing COVID-19 Events Checklist (CEC) and Measurement Based Care. International study to develop a patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate outcomes of gender-affirming care - the GENDER-Q. How patient-reported outcomes and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) are implemented in healthcare professional and patient organizations? An environmental scan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1