Differences in proxy-reported and patient-reported outcomes: assessing health and functional status among medicare beneficiaries

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Li, Minghui ^a   Harris, Ilene ^b,c   Lu, Z Kevin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF PHARMACY   (United States)

^c IMPAQ International LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

Disabled; Elderly; Health and functional status; Medicare; Patient reported outcomes; Proxy reported outcomes

Indexed keywords

AGED; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICARE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES; PROXY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELF REPORT; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICARE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROXY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF REPORT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84938931759     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-015-0053-7     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Neumann PJ, Araki SS, Gutterman EM. The use of proxy respondents in studies of older adults: lessons, challenges, and opportunities. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(12):1646-54.
2. Parsons JA, Baum S, Johnson TP. Inclusion of disabled populations in social surveys: review and recommendations. Survey Research Laboratory; 2000.
3. Todorov A, Kirchner C. Bias in proxies' reports of disability: data from the National Health Interview Survey on disability. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(8):1248-53.
4. Wedig GJ. Health status and the demand for health. Results on price elasticities. J Health Econ. 1988;7(2):151-63.
5. Lubitz J, Cai L, Kramarow E, Lentzner H. Health, life expectancy, and health care spending among the elderly. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(11):1048-55.
6. Magaziner J, Bassett SS, Hebel JR, 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. 1996;143(3):283-92.
7. Magaziner J, Zimmerman SI, Gruber-Baldini AL, Hebel JR, Fox KM. Proxy reporting in five areas of functional status. Comparison with self-reports and observations of performance. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;146(5):418-28.
8. Elliott MN, Beckett MK, Chong K, Hambarsoomians K, Hays RD. How do proxy responses and proxy-assisted responses differ from what Medicare beneficiaries might have reported about their health care? Health Serv Res. 2008;43(3):833-48.
9. Ellis BH, Bannister WM, Cox JK, Fowler BM, Shannon ED, Drachman D, et al. Utilization of the propensity score method: an exploratory comparison of proxy-completed to self-completed responses in the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:47.
10. 2010 Census Briefs [ http://www.census.gov ]
11. D'Agostino Jr RB. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998;17(19):2265-81.
12. Kautter J, Khatutsky G, Pope GC, Chromy JR, Adler GS. Impact of nonresponse on Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey estimates. Health Care Financ Rev. 2006;27(4):71-93.
13. Rassen JA, Shelat AA, Myers J, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S. One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21 Suppl 2:69-80.
14. Baser O. Too much ado about propensity score models? Comparing methods of propensity score matching. Value Health. 2006;9(6):377-85.
15. Gibson-Davis CM, Foster EM. A cautionary tale: Using propensity scores to estimate the effect of food stamps on food insecurity. Social Service Review. 2006;80(1):93-126.
16. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis. 2007;15(3):199-236.