Reliability of Proxy Respondents for Patients With Stroke: A Systematic Review

被引:77
作者
Oczkowski, Colin [1 ]
O'Donnell, Martin [1 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
关键词
Stroke; proxy respondents; reliability; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; HEALTH UTILITIES INDEX; AGREEMENT; ASSESSMENTS; DISABILITY; CAREGIVERS; RATINGS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2009.08.002
中图分类号
Q189 [神经科学];
学科分类号
071006 ;
摘要
Proxy respondents are an important aspect of stroke medicine and research. We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating the reliability of proxy respondents for stroke patients. Studies were identified by searches of MEDLINE, Google, and the Cochrane Library between January 1969 and June 2008. All were prospective or cross-sectional studies reporting the reliability of proxy respondents for patients with a history of previous stroke or transient ischemic attack. One author abstracted data. For each study, intraclass correlation (ICC) or the k-statistic was categorized as poor (<= 0.40), moderate (0.41-0.60), substantial (0.61-0.80), or excellent (>0.80). Thirteen studies, with a total of 2618 participants, met our inclusion criteria. Most studies recruited patients >3 months after their stroke. Of these studies, 5 (360 participants; 5 scales) evaluated reliability of proxy respondents for activities of daily living (ADL), and 9 (2334 participants; 9 scales) evaluated reliability of proxy respondents for quality of life (QoL). One study evaluated both. In studies, the ICC/k for scales ranged from 0.61 to 0.91 for ADL and from 0.41 to 0.8 for QoL. Most studies reported that proxy respondents overestimated impairments compared with patient self-reports. Stroke severity and objective nature of questions were the most consistent determinants of disagreement between stroke patient and proxy respondent. Our data indicate that beyond the acute stroke period, the reliability of proxy respondents for validated scales of ADL was substantial to excellent, while that of scales for QoL was moderate to substantial.
引用
收藏
页码:410 / 416
页数:7
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   Differences between patient and proxy reports in the assessment of disability after stroke [J].
Chen, Mei-Hsiang ;
Hsieh, Ching-Lin ;
Mao, Hui-Fen ;
Huang, Sheau-Ling .
CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 2007, 21 (04) :351-356
[2]   Measuring quality of life: Comparing family members' and friends' ratings with those of their aphasic partners [J].
Cruice, M ;
Worrall, L ;
Hickson, L ;
Murison, R .
APHASIOLOGY, 2005, 19 (02) :111-129
[3]   Are proxy assessments of health status after stroke with the EuroQol questionnaire feasible, accurate, and unbiased? [J].
Dorman, PJ ;
Waddell, F ;
Slattery, J ;
Dennis, M ;
Sandercock, P .
STROKE, 1997, 28 (10) :1883-1887
[4]   Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale [J].
Duncan, PW ;
Lai, SM ;
Tyler, D ;
Perera, S ;
Reker, DM ;
Studenski, S .
STROKE, 2002, 33 (11) :2593-2599
[5]   Proxy and self-report agreement on the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 [J].
Hilari, Katerina ;
Owen, Sophie ;
Farrelly, Sharon Jane .
JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 2007, 78 (10) :1072-1075
[6]   Use of the health utilities index with stroke patients and their caregivers [J].
Mathias, SD ;
Bates, MM ;
Pasta, DJ ;
Cisternas, MG ;
Feeny, D ;
Patrick, DL .
STROKE, 1997, 28 (10) :1888-1894
[7]   Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and health utilities index [J].
Pickard, AS ;
Johnson, JA ;
Feeny, DH ;
Shuaib, A ;
Carriere, KC ;
Nasser, AM .
STROKE, 2004, 35 (02) :607-612
[8]   Participation after stroke: Comparing proxies'and patients' perceptions [J].
Poulin, Valerie ;
Desrosiers, Johanne .
JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2008, 40 (01) :28-35
[9]   Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials [J].
Roberts, L ;
Counsell, C .
STROKE, 1998, 29 (05) :986-991
[10]   Telephone and in-person proxy agreement between stroke patients and caregivers for the functional independence measure [J].
Segal, ME ;
Gillard, M ;
Schall, RR .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION, 1996, 75 (03) :208-212