Agreement Between Patient and Proxy Responses During Recovery After Hip Fracture: Evidence for the FIM Instrument

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 87, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 1382-1387

  Jones, C Allyson ^a,b   Feeny, David H ^a,b,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b INSTITUTE OF HEALTH ECONOMICS   (Canada)

^c CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

^d Health Utilities Incorporated   (Canada)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Aged; Agreement; Hip fractures, proxy; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CAREGIVER; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; CUSTODY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE; HIP FRACTURE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINI MENTAL STATE EXAMINATION; PATIENT; SELF EVALUATION; TERTIARY HEALTH CARE;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HIP FRACTURES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROXY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 33749138213     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.06.008     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Magaziner J., Hawkes W., Hebel J.R., et al. Recovery from hip fracture in eight areas of function. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 55 (2000) M498-M507
2. Hannan E.L., Magaziner J., Wang J.J., et al. Mortality and locomotion 6 months after hospitalization for hip fracture: risk factors and risk-adjusted hospital outcomes. JAMA 285 (2001) 2736-2742
3. Wu A.W., Damiano A.M., Lynn J., et al. Predicting future functional status for seriously ill hospitalized adults. The SUPPORT prognostic model. Ann Intern Med 122 (1995) 342-350
4. Guide for the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation, version 5.1 (1997), State Univ New York, Buffalo
5. Jette A.M. The Functional Status Index: reliability and validity of a self-report functional disability measure. J Rheumatol Suppl 14 Suppl 15 (1987) 15-21
6. Brauer C., Morrison R.S., Silberzweig S.B., and Siu A.L. The cause of delirium in patients with hip fracture. Arch Intern Med 160 (2000) 1856-1860
7. Gustafson Y., Berggren D., Brannstrom B., et al. Acute confusional states in elderly patients treated for femoral neck fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc 36 (1988) 525-530
8. Gruber-Baldini A.L., Zimmerman S., Morrison R.S., et al. Cognitive impairment in hip fracture patients: timing of detection and longitudinal follow-up. J Am Geriatr Soc 51 (2003) 1227-1236
9. Lundstrom M., Edlund A., Bucht G., Karlsson S., and Gustafson Y. Dementia after delirium in patients with femoral neck fractures. J Am Geriatr Soc 51 (2003) 1002-1006
10. Marcantonio E., Ta T., Duthie E., and Resnick N.M. Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. J Am Geriatr Soc 50 (2002) 850-857
11. Koval K.J., Skovron M.L., Aharonoff G.B., Meadows S.E., and Zuckerman J.D. Ambulatory ability after hip fracture. A prospective study in geriatric patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 310 (1995) 150-159 Jan
12. Swanson C.E., Day G.A., Yelland C.E., et al. The management of elderly patients with femoral fractures. A randomised controlled trial of early intervention versus standard care. Med J Aust 169 (1998) 515-518
13. Koval K.J., Aharonoff G.B., Su E.T., and Zuckerman J.D. Effect of acute inpatient rehabilitation on outcome after fracture of the femoral neck or intertrochanteric fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80 (1998) 357-364
14. Tinetti M.E., Baker D.I., Gottschalk M., et al. Home-based multicomponent rehabilitation program for older persons after hip fracture: a randomized trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80 (1999) 916-922
15. Levi S.J. Posthospital setting, resource utilization, and self-care outcome in older women with hip fracture. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78 (1997) 973-979
16. Andresen E.M., Vahle V.J., and Lollar D. Proxy reliability: health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability. Qual Life Res 10 (2001) 609-619
17. Sprangers M.A., and Aaronson N.K. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 45 (1992) 743-760
18. Magaziner J., Simonsick E.M., Kashner T.M., and Hebel J.R. Patient-proxy response comparability on measures of patient health and functional status. J Clin Epidemiol 41 (1988) 1065-1074
19. Sneeuw K.C., Aaronson N.K., de Haan R.J., and Limburg M. Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke 28 (1997) 1541-1549
20. Tamim H., McCusker J., and Dendukuri N. Proxy reporting of quality of life using the EQ-5D. Med Care 40 (2002) 1186-1195
21. Rothman M.L., Hedrick S.C., Bulcroft K.A., Hickam D.H., and Rubenstein L.Z. The validity of proxy-generated scores as measures of patient health status. Med Care 29 (1991) 115-124
22. Magaziner J., Bassett S.S., Hebel J.R., and Gruber-Baldini A. Use of proxies to measure health and functional status in epidemiologic studies of community-dwelling women aged 65 years and older. Am J Epidemiol 143 (1996) 283-292
23. Jones C.A., and Feeny D.H. Agreement between patient and proxy responses of health-related quality of life after hip fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc 53 (2005) 1227-1233
24. Yasuda N., Zimmerman S., Hawkes W.G., Gruber-Baldini A.L., Hebel J.R., and Magaziner J. Concordance of proxy-perceived change and measured change in multiple domains of function in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 52 (2004) 1157-1162
25. Lynn S.A., Cook K.F., Lin P.S., Morgan R.O., and Magaziner J. Proxies and other external raters: methodological considerations. Health Serv Res 40 (2005) 1676-1693
26. Pickard A.S., Johnson J.A., Feeny D.H., Shuaib A., Carriere K.C., and Nasser A.M. Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Stroke 35 (2004) 607-612
27. Sneeuw K.C., Aaronson N.K., Osoba D., et al. The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer. Med Care 35 (1997) 490-506
28. Corder L.S., Woodbury M.A., and Manton K.G. Proxy response patterns among the aged: effects on estimates of health status and medical care utilization from the 1982-1984 long-term care surveys. J Clin Epidemiol 49 (1996) 173-182
29. Sneeuw K.C., Aaronson N.K., Sprangers M.A., Detmar S.B., Wever L.D., and Schornagel J.H. Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses. Br J Cancer 81 (1999) 87-94
30. Daving Y., Andren E., Nordholm L., and Grimby G. Reliability of an interview approach to the Functional Independence Measure. Clin Rehabil 15 (2001) 301-310
31. Segal M.E., Gillard M., and Schall R. Telephone and in-person proxy agreement between stroke patients and caregivers for the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 75 (1996) 208-212
32. Cusick C.P., Gerhart K.A., and Mellick D.C. Participant-proxy reliability in traumatic brain injury outcome research. J Head Trauma Rehabil 15 (2000) 739-749
33. Brosseau L., and Wolfson C. The inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the Functional Independence Measure for multiple sclerosis subjects. Clin Rehabil 8 (1994) 107-115
34. Ottenbacher K.J., Hsu Y., Granger C.V., and Fiedler R.C. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77 (1996) 1226-1232
35. Folstein M.F., Folstein S.E., and McHugh P.R. "Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatric Res 12 (1975) 189-198
36. Tombaugh T.N., and McIntyre N.J. The mini-mental state examination: a comprehensive review. J Am Geriatr Soc 40 (1992) 922-935
37. Granger C.V., Cotter A.C., Hamilton B.B., Fiedler R.C., and Hens M.M. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 71 (1990) 870-875
38. Wallace D., Duncan P.W., and Lai S.M. Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 55 (2002) 922-928
39. Pollak N., Rheault W., and Stoecker J.L. Reliability and validity of the FIM for persons aged 80 years and above from a multilevel continuing care retirement community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77 (1996) 1056-1061
40. Granger C.V., Hamilton B.B., Linacre J.M., Heinemann A.W., and Wright B.D. Performance profiles of the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 72 (1993) 84-89
41. Ottenbacher K.J., Mann W.C., Granger C.V., Tomita M., Hurren D., and Charvat B. Inter-rater agreement and stability of functional assessment in the community-based elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75 (1994) 1297-1301
42. Smith P.M., Illig S.B., Fiedler R.C., Hamilton B.B., Ottenbacher K.J., and Fielder R.C. Intermodal agreement of follow-up telephone functional assessment using the Functional Independence Measure in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77 (1996) 431-435
43. Petrella R.J., Overend T., and Chesworth B. FIM after hip fracture: is telephone administration valid and sensitive to change?. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 81 (2002) 639-644
44. Shrout P.E., and Fleiss J.L. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86 (1979) 420-428
45. McGraw K.O. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1 (1996) 30-46
46. Landis J.R., and Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 (1977) 159-174
47. Juniper E.J., Guyatt G.H., and Jaueschke R. How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B. (Ed). Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. (1996), Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia 49-56
48. Bland J.M., and Altman D.G. A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med 20 (1990) 337-340
49. Feeny D., Furlong W., Torrance G.W., et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care 40 (2002) 113-128
50. Furlong W., Feeny D., Torrance G.W., et al. Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: a technical report (1998), McMaster Univ Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper, Hamilton No. 98-11
51. Horsman J., Furlong W., Feeny D., and Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1 (2003) 54