Cargando…
How are you doing in the eyes of your spouse? Level of agreement between the self-completed EQ-5D-5L and two proxy perspectives in an orthopaedic population: a randomized agreement study
OBJECTIVES: To determine the level of agreement between both proxy versions and the self-completed EQ-5D-5L. DESIGN: A randomized agreement study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 120 patients (compos mentis) and their proxies at the orthopaedic outpatient clinic. Patients completed the regula...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7839187/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33499876 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01679-y |
_version_ | 1783643344345235456 |
---|---|
author | Tol, Maria C. J. M. Kuipers, Jurrian P. Willigenburg, Nienke W. Willems, Hanna C. Poolman, Rudolf W. |
author_facet | Tol, Maria C. J. M. Kuipers, Jurrian P. Willigenburg, Nienke W. Willems, Hanna C. Poolman, Rudolf W. |
author_sort | Tol, Maria C. J. M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To determine the level of agreement between both proxy versions and the self-completed EQ-5D-5L. DESIGN: A randomized agreement study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 120 patients (compos mentis) and their proxies at the orthopaedic outpatient clinic. Patients completed the regular EQ-5D-5L and their proxy completed the proxy version of the EQ-5D-5L and rated the patients’ health from their own (proxy-proxy) perspective (i.e. how do you rate the health of the patient), and from the patient’s (proxy-patient) perspective (i.e. how do you think the patient would rate their own health if they were able to). MEASURES: The primary outcome was the agreement between patients and their proxy, quantified as the intra class correlation coefficient for the EQ-5D-5L Utility score. RESULTS: Average Utility scores were 0.65 with the self completed EQ-5D-5L, versus 0.60 with the proxy-patient version and 0.58 with the proxy-proxy version. The ICC was 0.66 (95% CI 0.523, 0.753) for the proxy-patient perspective and 0.58 (95% CI 0.411, 0.697) for the proxy-proxy perspective. The mean gold standard score of the VAS-Health was 69.7 whereas the proxy-proxy perspective was 66.5 and the proxy-patient perspective was 66.3. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The proxy-patient perspective yielded substantial agreement with the self completed EQ-5D-5L, while the agreement with the proxy-proxy perspective was moderate. In this study population of patients without cognitive impairment, proxies tended to underestimate the quality of life of their relative. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7839187 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78391872021-01-27 How are you doing in the eyes of your spouse? Level of agreement between the self-completed EQ-5D-5L and two proxy perspectives in an orthopaedic population: a randomized agreement study Tol, Maria C. J. M. Kuipers, Jurrian P. Willigenburg, Nienke W. Willems, Hanna C. Poolman, Rudolf W. Health Qual Life Outcomes Research OBJECTIVES: To determine the level of agreement between both proxy versions and the self-completed EQ-5D-5L. DESIGN: A randomized agreement study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 120 patients (compos mentis) and their proxies at the orthopaedic outpatient clinic. Patients completed the regular EQ-5D-5L and their proxy completed the proxy version of the EQ-5D-5L and rated the patients’ health from their own (proxy-proxy) perspective (i.e. how do you rate the health of the patient), and from the patient’s (proxy-patient) perspective (i.e. how do you think the patient would rate their own health if they were able to). MEASURES: The primary outcome was the agreement between patients and their proxy, quantified as the intra class correlation coefficient for the EQ-5D-5L Utility score. RESULTS: Average Utility scores were 0.65 with the self completed EQ-5D-5L, versus 0.60 with the proxy-patient version and 0.58 with the proxy-proxy version. The ICC was 0.66 (95% CI 0.523, 0.753) for the proxy-patient perspective and 0.58 (95% CI 0.411, 0.697) for the proxy-proxy perspective. The mean gold standard score of the VAS-Health was 69.7 whereas the proxy-proxy perspective was 66.5 and the proxy-patient perspective was 66.3. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The proxy-patient perspective yielded substantial agreement with the self completed EQ-5D-5L, while the agreement with the proxy-proxy perspective was moderate. In this study population of patients without cognitive impairment, proxies tended to underestimate the quality of life of their relative. BioMed Central 2021-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7839187/ /pubmed/33499876 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01679-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Tol, Maria C. J. M. Kuipers, Jurrian P. Willigenburg, Nienke W. Willems, Hanna C. Poolman, Rudolf W. How are you doing in the eyes of your spouse? Level of agreement between the self-completed EQ-5D-5L and two proxy perspectives in an orthopaedic population: a randomized agreement study |
title | How are you doing in the eyes of your spouse? Level of agreement between the self-completed EQ-5D-5L and two proxy perspectives in an orthopaedic population: a randomized agreement study |
title_full | How are you doing in the eyes of your spouse? Level of agreement between the self-completed EQ-5D-5L and two proxy perspectives in an orthopaedic population: a randomized agreement study |
title_fullStr | How are you doing in the eyes of your spouse? Level of agreement between the self-completed EQ-5D-5L and two proxy perspectives in an orthopaedic population: a randomized agreement study |
title_full_unstemmed | How are you doing in the eyes of your spouse? Level of agreement between the self-completed EQ-5D-5L and two proxy perspectives in an orthopaedic population: a randomized agreement study |
title_short | How are you doing in the eyes of your spouse? Level of agreement between the self-completed EQ-5D-5L and two proxy perspectives in an orthopaedic population: a randomized agreement study |
title_sort | how are you doing in the eyes of your spouse? level of agreement between the self-completed eq-5d-5l and two proxy perspectives in an orthopaedic population: a randomized agreement study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7839187/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33499876 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01679-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tolmariacjm howareyoudoingintheeyesofyourspouselevelofagreementbetweentheselfcompletedeq5d5landtwoproxyperspectivesinanorthopaedicpopulationarandomizedagreementstudy AT kuipersjurrianp howareyoudoingintheeyesofyourspouselevelofagreementbetweentheselfcompletedeq5d5landtwoproxyperspectivesinanorthopaedicpopulationarandomizedagreementstudy AT willigenburgnienkew howareyoudoingintheeyesofyourspouselevelofagreementbetweentheselfcompletedeq5d5landtwoproxyperspectivesinanorthopaedicpopulationarandomizedagreementstudy AT willemshannac howareyoudoingintheeyesofyourspouselevelofagreementbetweentheselfcompletedeq5d5landtwoproxyperspectivesinanorthopaedicpopulationarandomizedagreementstudy AT poolmanrudolfw howareyoudoingintheeyesofyourspouselevelofagreementbetweentheselfcompletedeq5d5landtwoproxyperspectivesinanorthopaedicpopulationarandomizedagreementstudy |