Literature DB >> 15838415

Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: a conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives.

A Simon Pickard1, Sara J Knight.   

Abstract

Proxy assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQL) may be sought to substitute for, or to complement, patient self-assessment. The viewpoint from which the proxy is asked to assess the patient is a subtle yet important aspect of proxy assessment. Proxy assessments can be elicited by asking a proxy to assess the patient as they think the patient would respond (ie, proxy-patient perspective) or for the proxy to provide their own perspective on the patient's HRQL (ie, proxy-proxy perspective). In this article, we introduce a framework for differentiating between and understanding HRQL assessments according to rater viewpoint. The difference between patient self-assessment and the proxy-patient perspective is defined as the inter-rater gap, whereas the difference between the proxy-patient and proxy-proxy perspective is described as the intra-proxy gap. The inter-rater gap represents the difference between patient self-assessed HRQL and the proxy ability to comprehend the patient view. The extent to which the proxy-proxy perspective is informative will depend upon the proxy's ability to provide reinforcing or complementary information, ie, represented by the intra-proxy gap, on the HRQL of the patient. We refer to the framework to emphasize the importance of delineating between proxy perspectives in study design and HRQL measurement and to guide inquiries into the validity and interpretation of the meaningfulness of the proxy HRQL assessments from each viewpoint. Future research and use of proxy raters of HRQL in clinical trials, population health monitoring, resource allocation, and clinical management can be informed by explicit consideration of the suggested framework.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15838415      PMCID: PMC1188232          DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000160419.27642.a8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  63 in total

1.  Whose quality of life? or Whose decision?

Authors:  Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Quality of life in cancer patients--an hypothesis.

Authors:  K C Calman
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Influence of proxy respondents and mode of administration on health status assessment following central nervous system tumours in childhood.

Authors:  A W Glaser; K Davies; D Walker; D Brazier
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Substituting proxy ratings for patient ratings in cancer clinical trials: an analysis based on a Southwest Oncology Group trial in patients with brain metastases.

Authors:  C M Moinpour; B Lyons; S P Schmidt; K Chansky; R A Patchell
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?

Authors:  G A De Wit; J J Busschbach; F T De Charro
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Perception of quality of life by patients, partners and treating physicians.

Authors:  K A Wilson; A J Dowling; M Abdolell; I F Tannock
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Practical issues in assisting shared decision-making.

Authors:  Deb Feldman-Stewart; Michael D. Brundage; Beth A. McConnell; William J. MacKillop
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 8.  Measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; D H Feeny; D L Patrick
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  The effects of the presence of a third person on the physician-older patient medical interview.

Authors:  M G Greene; S D Majerovitz; R D Adelman; C Rizzo
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 5.562

10.  Disparities in perceptions of distress and burden in ALS patients and family caregivers.

Authors:  E E Adelman; S M Albert; J G Rabkin; M L Del Bene; T Tider; I O'Sullivan
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2004-05-25       Impact factor: 9.910

View more
  70 in total

1.  Nursing home resident quality of life: testing for measurement equivalence across resident, family, and staff perspectives.

Authors:  Judith Godin; Janice Keefe; E Kevin Kelloway; John P Hirdes
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Participant-Informant Relationships Affect Quality of Life Ratings in Incipient and Clinical Alzheimer Disease.

Authors:  Amy Lin; Jenny Brook; Joshua D Grill; Edmond Teng
Journal:  Am J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 4.105

3.  Perspectives of survivors, families and researchers on key outcomes for research in acute respiratory failure.

Authors:  Victor D Dinglas; Caroline M Chessare; Wesley E Davis; Ann Parker; Lisa Aronson Friedman; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Clifton O Bingham; Alison E Turnbull; Dale M Needham
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2017-07-29       Impact factor: 9.139

4.  Comparing reports from hip-fracture patients and their proxies: implications on evaluating sex differences in disability and depressive symptoms.

Authors:  Michelle Shardell; Dawn E Alley; Ram R Miller; Gregory E Hicks; Jay Magaziner
Journal:  J Aging Health       Date:  2011-12-29

Review 5.  The quality of life of older people aging in place: a literature review.

Authors:  Patricia Vanleerberghe; Nico De Witte; Claudia Claes; Robert L Schalock; Dominique Verté
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Factors influencing self- and parent-reporting health-related quality of life in children with brain tumors.

Authors:  Iori Sato; Akiko Higuchi; Takaaki Yanagisawa; Akitake Mukasa; Kohmei Ida; Yutaka Sawamura; Kazuhiko Sugiyama; Nobuhito Saito; Toshihiro Kumabe; Mizuhiko Terasaki; Ryo Nishikawa; Yasushi Ishida; Kiyoko Kamibeppu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Discrepancies between proxy estimates and patient reported, health related, quality of life: minding the gap between patient and clinician perceptions in heart failure.

Authors:  Roslyn A Prichard; Fei-Li Zhao; Julee Mcdonagh; Stephen Goodall; Patricia M Davidson; Phillip J Newton; Ben Farr-Wharton; Christopher S Hayward
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D in a study of people with mild to moderate dementia.

Authors:  Simone Kunz
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-02-10       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Quality of life before intensive care using EQ-5D: patient versus proxy responses.

Authors:  Victor D Dinglas; Jeneen M Gifford; Nadia Husain; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Dale M Needham
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 7.598

10.  Quality of Life, Treatment Beliefs, and Treatment Satisfaction in Children Treated for Primary Immunodeficiency with SCIg.

Authors:  Serge Sultan; Émélie Rondeau; Marie-Claude Levasseur; Renée Dicaire; Hélène Decaluwe; Élie Haddad
Journal:  J Clin Immunol       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 8.317

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.