BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine proxy-patient agreement on the domains of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), as per the proxy-proxy perspective. METHODS: Stroke patients were prospectively assessed by means of the NIH Stroke Scale, Barthel index, and modified Rankin scale. Proxies and patients answered the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the SIS 3.0. Comparisons of patient-proxy mean scores (paired t test), effect size, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for each of the SIS domains, and weighted kappa for individual items. RESULTS: 180 proxy-patient pairs were assessed. Proxies were younger (mean age: 43.1 versus 57.9 years) and had a higher education level (P<0.0001). The bias between patient-proxy mean differences was low (from 5.3, Strength, to 0.1, Communication). Proxies significantly scored patients as more severely affected in Strength (41.7 versus 36.6; P<0.0001) and ADL (46.2 versus 43.1; P=0.01) domains, and Composite Physical Domain (CPD; 39.7 versus 34.9; P<0.0001). The magnitude of difference was small (size effect: 0.21). ICC values for the SIS domains ranged from 0.17 (Emotion) to 0.79 (Hand function). The ICC value for the CPD was 0.83. Memory, Communication, Emotion, and Social Participation domains had ICC lower values. The weighted kappa values for the SIS items ranged from 0.09 (item 4e) to 0.80 (item 7d). Highest values (moderate/high agreement) were observed for the SIS-16 and CPD (kappa values: 0.31 to 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between stroke patients and proxies was acceptable for most SIS domains and SIS-16. Proxy's assessment of SIS subjective domains should be taken with caution.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine proxy-patient agreement on the domains of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), as per the proxy-proxy perspective. METHODS:Strokepatients were prospectively assessed by means of the NIH Stroke Scale, Barthel index, and modified Rankin scale. Proxies and patients answered the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the SIS 3.0. Comparisons of patient-proxy mean scores (paired t test), effect size, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for each of the SIS domains, and weighted kappa for individual items. RESULTS: 180 proxy-patient pairs were assessed. Proxies were younger (mean age: 43.1 versus 57.9 years) and had a higher education level (P<0.0001). The bias between patient-proxy mean differences was low (from 5.3, Strength, to 0.1, Communication). Proxies significantly scored patients as more severely affected in Strength (41.7 versus 36.6; P<0.0001) and ADL (46.2 versus 43.1; P=0.01) domains, and Composite Physical Domain (CPD; 39.7 versus 34.9; P<0.0001). The magnitude of difference was small (size effect: 0.21). ICC values for the SIS domains ranged from 0.17 (Emotion) to 0.79 (Hand function). The ICC value for the CPD was 0.83. Memory, Communication, Emotion, and Social Participation domains had ICC lower values. The weighted kappa values for the SIS items ranged from 0.09 (item 4e) to 0.80 (item 7d). Highest values (moderate/high agreement) were observed for the SIS-16 and CPD (kappa values: 0.31 to 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between strokepatients and proxies was acceptable for most SIS domains and SIS-16. Proxy's assessment of SIS subjective domains should be taken with caution.
Authors: Alasdair Grant Rooney; Shanne McNamara; Mairi Mackinnon; Mary Fraser; Roy Rampling; Alan Carson; Robin Grant Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2013-02-24 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Pham L Tran; C Leigh Blizzard; Velandai Srikanth; Vo T X Hanh; Nguyen T K Lien; Nguyen H Thang; Seana L Gall Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Cheryl Bushnell; Janet Prvu Bettger; Kevin M Cockroft; Steven C Cramer; Maria Orlando Edelen; Daniel Hanley; Irene L Katzan; Soeren Mattke; Dawn M Nilsen; Tepring Piquado; Elizabeth R Skidmore; Kay Wing; Gayane Yenokyan Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2015-10
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: Allan J Kozlowski; Ritika Singh; David Victorson; Ana Miskovic; Jin-Shei Lai; Richard L Harvey; David Cella; Allen W Heinemann Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Gerd Brunner; Eric Y Yang; Anirudh Kumar; Wensheng Sun; Salim S Virani; Smita I Negi; Tyler Murray; Peter H Lin; Ron C Hoogeveen; Changyi Chen; Jing-Fei Dong; Panagiotis Kougias; Addison Taylor; Alan B Lumsden; Vijay Nambi; Christie M Ballantyne; Joel D Morrisett Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Brittany R Lapin; Nicolas R Thompson; Andrew Schuster; Ryan Honomichl; Irene L Katzan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 4.147