BACKGROUND: There are difficulties in obtaining health-related quality of life (HRQL) data from patients with dementia due to variation in their cognitive ability, degree of insight and capacity to make judgments. The use of proxies is one solution. OBJECTIVES: To examine the inter-rater agreement of patient and proxy completion of the EuroQol EQ-5D instrument (EQ-5D). RESEARCH DESIGN: The EQ-5D instrument was completed separately by patients, their caregivers and a physician. Assessment of inter-rater agreement involved comparison of self-completed (patient) and proxy-completed (caregiver and physician) responses for each dimension of EQ-5D, using a weighted kappa score. Three key hypotheses were tested. (1) Interrater agreement would be stronger between patient and caregiver than between patient and physician. (2) Interrater agreement would be stronger on the 'observable' and objective dimensions of EQ-5D. (3) Interrater agreement between patient and proxies would be stronger for patients with earlier dementia. SUBJECTS: The sample comprised 64 patients with a range of dementia severity. MEASURES: The EQ-5D health state classification system and visual analogue scale were used to assess HRQL. Global severity of dementia was determined using the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale. RESULTS: The principal finding of this study was that responses to EQ-5D questions were highly variable across the three raters such that none of the three hypotheses were strongly supported. CONCLUSIONS: The data provide some support for the use of EQ-5D when interviewer administered. However, there are serious concerns regarding the validity of patient self-rated HRQL data obtained in this study and uncertainty exists regarding who the appropriate proxy should be, as different groups of proxies provide different results. It was not clear whether caregivers or physicians represent better proxies. Further research should focus on the comparison of caregivers and physicians as proxies.
BACKGROUND: There are difficulties in obtaining health-related quality of life (HRQL) data from patients with dementia due to variation in their cognitive ability, degree of insight and capacity to make judgments. The use of proxies is one solution. OBJECTIVES: To examine the inter-rater agreement of patient and proxy completion of the EuroQol EQ-5D instrument (EQ-5D). RESEARCH DESIGN: The EQ-5D instrument was completed separately by patients, their caregivers and a physician. Assessment of inter-rater agreement involved comparison of self-completed (patient) and proxy-completed (caregiver and physician) responses for each dimension of EQ-5D, using a weighted kappa score. Three key hypotheses were tested. (1) Interrater agreement would be stronger between patient and caregiver than between patient and physician. (2) Interrater agreement would be stronger on the 'observable' and objective dimensions of EQ-5D. (3) Interrater agreement between patient and proxies would be stronger for patients with earlier dementia. SUBJECTS: The sample comprised 64 patients with a range of dementia severity. MEASURES: The EQ-5D health state classification system and visual analogue scale were used to assess HRQL. Global severity of dementia was determined using the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale. RESULTS: The principal finding of this study was that responses to EQ-5D questions were highly variable across the three raters such that none of the three hypotheses were strongly supported. CONCLUSIONS: The data provide some support for the use of EQ-5D when interviewer administered. However, there are serious concerns regarding the validity of patient self-rated HRQL data obtained in this study and uncertainty exists regarding who the appropriate proxy should be, as different groups of proxies provide different results. It was not clear whether caregivers or physicians represent better proxies. Further research should focus on the comparison of caregivers and physicians as proxies.
Authors: Gary Naglie; George Tomlinson; Catherine Tansey; Jane Irvine; Paul Ritvo; Sandra E Black; Morris Freedman; Michel Silberfeld; Murray Krahn Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Yin Bun Cheung; Hui Xing Tan; Vivian Wei Wang; Nagaendran Kandiah; Nan Luo; Gerald C H Koh; Hwee Lin Wee Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Laura Brennan; Andrew Siderowf; Jonathan D Rubright; Jacqueline Rick; Nabila Dahodwala; John E Duda; Howard Hurtig; Matthew Stern; Sharon X Xie; Lior Rennert; Jason Karlawish; Judy A Shea; John Q Trojanowski; Daniel Weintraub Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2016-02-21 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Neal V Dawson; Mendel E Singer; Leslie Lenert; Marian B Patterson; Susie A Sami; Iahn Gonsenhouser; Heather A Lindstrom; Kathleen A Smyth; Melissa J Barber; Peter J Whitehouse Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2008-03-18 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jennifer C Davis; Stirling Bryan; Carlo A Marra; Ging-Yuek R Hsiung; Teresa Liu-Ambrose Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Rolf Holle; Elmar Grässel; Stefan Ruckdäschel; Sonja Wunder; Hilmar Mehlig; Peter Marx; Olaf Pirk; Martin Butzlaff; Simone Kunz; Jörg Lauterberg Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-06-06 Impact factor: 2.655