4.6 Article

The agreement between proxy and self-completed EQ-5D for care home residents was better for index scores than individual domains

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 67, 期 9, 页码 1035-1043

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.005

关键词

EQ-5D; Proxy-rated health; Self-rated health; Health-related quality of life; Care homes; Agreement

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme [06/02/01]
  2. Medical Research Council [MR/L011964/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0512-10103, 06/02/01] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Proxy measures are an alternative source of data for care home residents who are unable to complete the health utility measure, but the agreement levels between residents and care home staff for the EQ-5D have not been investigated previously. The objective of the present study was to examine the inter-rater agreement levels for the reporting of EQ-5D by care home residents and staff, adjusting for the impact of clustering. Study Design and Setting: The data consist of EQ-5D scores for 565 pairs of care home residents and proxies and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for 248 pairs. Cluster-adjusted agreement was compared for the domains, index scores, and QALYs from the EQ-5D. Factors influencing index score agreement are also described. Results: The results show poor to fair agreement at the domain level (cluster-adjusted Kappa -0.03 to 0.26) and moderate agreement at the score level (cluster-adjusted intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.44-0.50) and for QALYs (cluster-adjusted ICC 0.59). A higher likelihood of depression and lower cognitive impairment were both associated with smaller discrepancy between proxy and self-completed scores. Conclusion: Proxies appear to be an acceptable source of data for index scores and QALYs but may be less reliable if individual domains are considered. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据