Jessica K Roydhouse1, Ira B Wilson2. 1. Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, 121 S. Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA. jessica_roydhouse@brown.edu. 2. Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, 121 S. Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In surveys and in research, proxies such as family members may be used to assess patient health-related quality of life. The aim of this research is to help cancer researchers select a validated health-related quality of life tool if they anticipate using proxy-reported data. METHODS: Systematic review and methodological appraisal of studies examining the concordance of paired adult cancer patient and proxy responses for multidimensional, validated HRQOL tools. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and perused bibliographies of reviewed papers. We reviewed concordance assessment methods, results, and associated factors for each validated tool. RESULTS: A total of 32 papers reporting on 29 study populations were included. Most papers were cross-sectional (N = 20) and used disease-specific tools (N = 19), primarily the FACT and EORTC. Patient and proxy mean scores were similar on average for tools and scales, with most mean differences <10 points but large standard deviations. Average ICCs for the FACT and EORTC ranged from 0.35 to 0.62, depending on the scale. Few papers (N = 15) evaluated factors associated with concordance, and results and measurement approaches were inconsistent. The EORTC was the most commonly evaluated disease-specific tool (N = 5 papers). For generic tools, both concordance and associated factor information was most commonly available for the COOP/WONCA (N = 3 papers). The MQOL was the most frequently evaluated end-of-life tool (N = 3 papers). CONCLUSIONS: Proxy and patient scores are similar on average, but there is large, clinically important residual variability. The evidence base is strongest for the EORTC (disease-specific tools), COOP/WONCA (generic tools), and MQOL (end-of-life-specific tools).
PURPOSE: In surveys and in research, proxies such as family members may be used to assess patient health-related quality of life. The aim of this research is to help cancer researchers select a validated health-related quality of life tool if they anticipate using proxy-reported data. METHODS: Systematic review and methodological appraisal of studies examining the concordance of paired adult cancerpatient and proxy responses for multidimensional, validated HRQOL tools. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and perused bibliographies of reviewed papers. We reviewed concordance assessment methods, results, and associated factors for each validated tool. RESULTS: A total of 32 papers reporting on 29 study populations were included. Most papers were cross-sectional (N = 20) and used disease-specific tools (N = 19), primarily the FACT and EORTC. Patient and proxy mean scores were similar on average for tools and scales, with most mean differences <10 points but large standard deviations. Average ICCs for the FACT and EORTC ranged from 0.35 to 0.62, depending on the scale. Few papers (N = 15) evaluated factors associated with concordance, and results and measurement approaches were inconsistent. The EORTC was the most commonly evaluated disease-specific tool (N = 5 papers). For generic tools, both concordance and associated factor information was most commonly available for the COOP/WONCA (N = 3 papers). The MQOL was the most frequently evaluated end-of-life tool (N = 3 papers). CONCLUSIONS: Proxy and patient scores are similar on average, but there is large, clinically important residual variability. The evidence base is strongest for the EORTC (disease-specific tools), COOP/WONCA (generic tools), and MQOL (end-of-life-specific tools).
Entities:
Keywords:
Adult; Caregiver; Observer; Proxy; Quality of life
Authors: K Cocks; M T King; G Velikova; G de Castro; M Martyn St-James; P M Fayers; J M Brown Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jennifer M Jones; Christine J McPherson; Camilla Zimmermann; Gary Rodin; Lisa W Le; S Robin Cohen Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Megan Doyle; Nicole Marie Eve Bradley; Kathy Li; Emily Sinclair; Kelvin Lam; Grace Chan; Edward Chow; Elizabeth A Barnes; Cyril Danjoux; May N Tsao Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Daniel S J Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Claudia Rutherford; Margaret-Ann Tait; Madeleine T King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Rachel D Havyer; Michelle van Ryn; Patrick M Wilson; Lauren R Bangerter; Joan M Griffin Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Augusta Silveira; Teresa Sequeira; Joaquim Gonçalves; Pedro Lopes Ferreira Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Jessica K Roydhouse; Roee Gutman; Nancy L Keating; Vincent Mor; Ira B Wilson Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Fliss Em Murtagh; Christina Ramsenthaler; Alice Firth; Esther I Groeneveld; Natasha Lovell; Steffen T Simon; Johannes Denzel; Ping Guo; Florian Bernhardt; Eva Schildmann; Birgitt van Oorschot; Farina Hodiamont; Sabine Streitwieser; Irene J Higginson; Claudia Bausewein Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Vera Vennedey; Samia Peltzer; Arim Shukri; Hendrik Müller; Frank Jessen; Christian Albus; Stephanie Stock Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2020 Jan-Dec
Authors: Jessica K Roydhouse; Matthew L Cohen; Henrik R Eshoj; Nadia Corsini; Emre Yucel; Claudia Rutherford; Katarzyna Wac; Allan Berrocal; Alyssa Lanzi; Cindy Nowinski; Natasha Roberts; Angelos P Kassianos; Veronique Sebille; Madeleine T King; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 4.147