The influence of proxy perspective on patient-proxy agreement in the evaluation of health-related quality of life: An empirical study

Medical Care

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 209-216

  Gundy, Chad M ^a   Aaronson, Neil K ^a  

^a NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Agreement; Health status; Provider patient communication; Proxy; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CUSTODY; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM; NETHERLANDS; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; NETHERLANDS; PROXY; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE;

EID: 38549108044     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318158af13     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Pickard AS, Knight SJ. Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: a conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Med Care. 2005;43:493-499.
2. Sneeuw K, Aaronson NK, Sprangers MA, et al. Comparison of patient and proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 rating in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:617-631.
3. Sneeuw K, Sprangers MA, Aaronson N. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: an update. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:1130-1143.
4. Zubrod CG, Schneiderman M, Frei E, et al. Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene thiophosphoramide. J Chronic Dis. 1960;11:7-33.
5. Conill C, Verger E, Salamero M. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. Cancer. 1990;65:1864-1866.
6. Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, et al. Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care. 1991;29:169-176.
7. Hays R, Stewart A, Hayashi T. A five-item measure of socially desirable response set. Educ Psychol Meas. 1989;49:629-636.
8. Scheurs JPG, Van de Willige G, Brosschot JF, et al. De Utrechtse Coping Lijst (UCL): handleiding [The Utrecht Coping List (UCL): manual]. Lisse: Swet-Zeitlinger; 1993.
9. Wijker W, Monincx W, Birnie E, et al. Comparison of two forms of gynaecological care: at home and in the hospital. Qual Life Newsletter. 1993;7:4.
10. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365-376.
11. Osoba D, Aaronson NK, Zee B, et al. Modification of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 2.0) based on content validity and reliability testing in large samples of patients with cancer. Qual Life Res. 1997;6:103-108.
12. Aaronson NK, Cull A, Kaasa S, Sprangers MAG. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology: an update. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996:179-189.
13. Fayers PM, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, et al. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. 3rd ed. Brussels: European Organization for Researcha and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.
14. Hjermstad MJ, Fossa SD, Bjordal K, et al. Test/retest study of the European organization for research and treatment of cancer core quality-of-life questionnaire. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1249-1254.
15. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297-334.
16. Lautenschlager GJ. ALPHATST. Testing for differences in coefficient alpha. Appl Psychol Meas. 1989;13:284.
17. Lee J, Koh D, Ong CN. Statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring a quantitative variable. Comput Biol Med. 1989;19:61-70.
18. Marshall GN, Hays RD, Nicholas R. Evaluating agreement between clinical assessment methods. Int J Methods Psychiat Res. 1994;4:249-257.
19. Nelson LM, Longstreth WT Jr, Koepsell TD, et al. Proxy respondents in epidemiologic research. Epidemiol Rev. 1990;12:71-86.
20. Bartko JJ. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep. 1966;19:3-11.
21. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
22. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, et al. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16: 139-144.
23. Hays RD, Vickrey BG, Hermann BP, et al. Agreement between self reports and proxy reports of quality of life in epilepsy patients. Qual Life Res. 1995;4:159-168.
24. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;57:81-105.
25. Weinfurt KP, Trucco SM, Willke RJ, et al. Measuring agreement between patient and proxy responses to multidimensional health-related quality-of-life measures in clinical trials: an application of psychometric profile analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:608-618.
26. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
27. Brennan RL. Generalizability Theory. New York, NY: Springer; 2001.
28. Nisbett R, Ross L. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.
29. Kahneman D. Maps of bounded rationality: a perspective on intuitive judgment and choice, Nobel Prize Lecture, December 8, 2002. In: Tore Frängsmyr, ed. The Nobel Prizes 2002. Stockholm: Nobel Foundation; 2003:449-489.