OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the assessment of disability level including basic activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL varies between patients' and proxy respondents' reports, and to explore the factors influencing proxy agreement. DESIGN: Patient-proxy agreement study. SETTING: Hospital settings. SUBJECTS: Fifty-two stroke patients with mild or without cognitive impairments and their primary caregivers voluntarily participated in this study. MAIN MEASURES: The self-administered versions of the Barthel Index and Frenchay Activities Index were completed by the patients and their proxy respondents concurrently, yet separately, to assess the level of disability. RESULTS: The proxy agreement on total scores of the self-administered Barthel Index and self-administered Frenchay Activities Index demonstrated moderate to good agreement (self-administered Barthel Index: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.71; self-administered Frenchay Activities Index: ICC = 0.6). There were no significant differences between patient and proxy reports on self-administered Barthel Index and self-administered Frenchay Activities Index scores (paired t = -0.22, P = 0.83; paired t = 0.88, P = 0.39, respectively). However, limits of agreement of patient and proxy reports on the self-administered Barthel Index and self-administered Frenchay Activities Index were notable. Stepwise regression analysis found no significant variables associated with proxy agreement. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that it is appropriate for research purposes, but not appropriate for clinical usage, to use proxy reports to measure disability levels in patients with stroke. Furthermore, the two methods should not be used interchangeably to monitor patients because of the wide limits of agreement between patient and proxy reports on the self-administered Barthel Index and self-administered Frenchay Activities Index.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the assessment of disability level including basic activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL varies between patients' and proxy respondents' reports, and to explore the factors influencing proxy agreement. DESIGN:Patient-proxy agreement study. SETTING: Hospital settings. SUBJECTS: Fifty-two strokepatients with mild or without cognitive impairments and their primary caregivers voluntarily participated in this study. MAIN MEASURES: The self-administered versions of the Barthel Index and Frenchay Activities Index were completed by the patients and their proxy respondents concurrently, yet separately, to assess the level of disability. RESULTS: The proxy agreement on total scores of the self-administered Barthel Index and self-administered Frenchay Activities Index demonstrated moderate to good agreement (self-administered Barthel Index: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.71; self-administered Frenchay Activities Index: ICC = 0.6). There were no significant differences between patient and proxy reports on self-administered Barthel Index and self-administered Frenchay Activities Index scores (paired t = -0.22, P = 0.83; paired t = 0.88, P = 0.39, respectively). However, limits of agreement of patient and proxy reports on the self-administered Barthel Index and self-administered Frenchay Activities Index were notable. Stepwise regression analysis found no significant variables associated with proxy agreement. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that it is appropriate for research purposes, but not appropriate for clinical usage, to use proxy reports to measure disability levels in patients with stroke. Furthermore, the two methods should not be used interchangeably to monitor patients because of the wide limits of agreement between patient and proxy reports on the self-administered Barthel Index and self-administered Frenchay Activities Index.
Authors: Margaret G Stineman; Dawei Xie; Qiang Pan; Jibby E Kurichi; Debra Saliba; Joel Streim Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Margaret G Stineman; John T Henry-Sánchez; Jibby E Kurichi; Qiang Pan; Dawei Xie; Debra Saliba; Zi Zhang; Joel E Streim Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Alan M Jette; Pengsheng Ni; Elizabeth K Rasch; Jed Appelman; M Elizabeth Sandel; Joseph Terdiman; Leighton Chan Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Melanie Zirnsak; Christine Meisinger; Jakob Linseisen; Michael Ertl; Philipp Zickler; Markus Naumann; Inge Kirchberger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Monica Spruit-van Eijk; Bianca I Buijck; Sytse U Zuidema; Frans L M Voncken; Alexander C H Geurts; Raymond T C M Koopmans Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2010-03-27 Impact factor: 3.921