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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tol, Maria C. J. M., Kuipers, Jurrian P., Willigenburg, Nienke W., Willems, Hanna C., Poolman, Rudolf W.
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