Assessment by proxy of the SF-36 and WHO-DAS 2.0. A systematic review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v55.4493Keywords:
Proxy, Health-Related Quality of Life, HRQoL, Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorders, Neurocognitive DisordersAbstract
Background and objective: In some cases, for the evaluation of the health status of patients it is not possible to obtain data directly from the patient. The objective of this study was to determine if the instruments that cannot be applied to the patient can be completed by a proxy.
Methods: A systematic review of the literature was carried out and 20 studies were included. The instruments reviewed in this synthesis were: Short Form-36 (SF-36), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), WHODAS 2.0, Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Disability Rating Scale (DRS).
Results: The levels of agreement between the responses of the patients and the proxies were good, mainly when evaluating HRQoL and functioning with the SF-36 and WHODAS 2.0 instruments, respectively, with a higher level of agreement in the more objective and observable domains such as physical functioning and lower level of agreement in less objective domains, such as emotional or affective status, and self-perception.
Conclusion: In patients who cannot complete the different instruments, the use of a proxy can help avoid the omission of responses.
LAY ABSTRACT
People with certain mental or neurological illnesses are often unable to answer questions about their health sta-tus, functional ability, or quality of life. In some cases, a relative or a person who knows the patient can fill out questionnaires to find out how affected he/she is, detect changes in his/her condition and even evaluate the response to the interventions performed. These people are known as proxies. This research sought to assess which questionnaires for measuring depression, anxiety, neurocognitive impairment, quality of life, function, or disability can be answered by a proxy, when patients cannot answer for themselves. For this, the medical literature published on this subject was reviewed. Twenty studies showing a good agreement between the responses of the patients and the proxies were found, especially in the assessment of quality of life and functional capacity. The use of a proxy can help avoid the omission of responses.
Downloads
References
Elliott D, Lazarus R, Leeder SR. Proxy respondents reliably assessed the quality of life of elective cardiac surgery patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 153–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.06.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.06.010
Andresen EM, Vahle VJ, Lollar D. Proxy reliability: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 609–619. DOI: 10.1023/a:101318790359
Pierre U, Wood-Dauphinee S, Korner-Bitensky N, Gayton D, Hanley J. Proxy use of the Canadian SF-36 in rating health status of the disabled elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 983–990. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00090-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00090-0
Yip JY, Wilber KH, Myrtle RC, Grazman DN. Comparison of older adult subject and proxy responses on the SF-36 health-related quality of life instrument. Aging Ment Health 2001; 5: 136–142. DOI: 10.1080/13607860120038357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13607860120038357
Rooney AG, McNamara S, Mackinnon M, Fraser M, Rampling R, Carson A, et al. Screening for major depressive disorder in adults with glioma using the PHQ-9: a comparison of patient versus proxy reports. J Neurooncol 2013; 113: 49–55. DOI: 10.1007/s11060-013-1088-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-013-1088-4
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. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-47
Davin B, Joutard X, Paraponaris A. “If you were me”: proxy respondents’ biases in population health surveys. Research Papers in Economics 2019.
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; 430: 833–848. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00820.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00820.x
Li M, Harris I, Lu ZK. Differences in proxy-reported and patient-reported outcomes: assessing health and functional status among Medicare beneficiaries. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015; 15: 62. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-015-0053-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0053-7
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002
MoCA Test. MoCA – cognitive assessment. 2019 [cited 2022 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.mocatest.org/the-moca-test/
WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Who.int. [cited 2022 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health/who-disability-assessment-schedule
Disability Rating Scale. Tbims.org. [cited 2022 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.tbims.org/combi/drs/
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 606–613. DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
Julian LJ. Measures of anxiety: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63: S467–S472. DOI: 10.1002/acr.20561. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20561
Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools. 2017 [cited 2022 Jun 8]. Available from: https://joannabriggs.org/ebp/critical_appraisal_tools
Prieto L, Lamarca R, Casado A. [Assessment of the reliability of clinical findings: the intraclass correlation coefficient]. La evaluación de la fiabilidad en las observaciones clínicas: el coeficiente de correlación intraclase. Med Clin (Barc) 1998; 110: 142–145.
Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ. Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen 2012; 141: 2–18. DOI: 10.1037/a0024338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338
Hair JF, Celsi M, Celsi MW, Money A, Samouel P, Page M. The essentials of business research methods. 3rd edn. London: Routledge; 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315704562
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1977.
Solari A, Radice D. Health status of people with multiple sclerosis: a community mail survey. Neurol Sci 2001; 22: 307–315. DOI: 10.1007/s10072-001-8173-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-001-8173-8
Novella JL, Boyer F, Jochum C, Jovenin N, Morrone I, Jolly D, et al. Health status in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: an investigation of inter-rater agreement. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 811–819. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-005-5434-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-5434-7
Novella JL, Jochum C, Ankri J, Morrone I, Jolly D, Blanchard F. Measuring general health status in dementia: practical and methodological issues in using the SF-36. Aging (Milano) 2001; 13: 362–369. DOI: 10.1007/BF03351504. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03351504
Andresen EM, Vahle VJ, Lollar D. Proxy reliability: health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 609–619. DOI: 10.1023/a:1013187903591. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013187903591
Tarvonen-Schröder S, Tenovuo O, Kaljonen A, Laimi K. Usability of World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule in chronic traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Med 2018; 50: 514–518. DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2345
Downing NR, Kim JI, Williams JK, Long JD, Mills JA, Paulsen JS; PREDICT-HD Investigators and Coordinators of the Huntington Study Group. WHODAS 2.0 in prodromal Huntington disease: measures of functioning in neuropsychiatric disease. Eur J Hum Genet 2014; 22: 958–963. DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.275
Tarvonen-Schröder S, Hurme S, Laimi K. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the WHO Minimal Generic Set of Domains of Functioning and Health versus conventional instruments in subacute stroke. J Rehabil Med 2019; 51: 675–682. DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2583. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2583
Tarvonen-Schröder S, Kaljonen A, Laimi K. Comparing functioning in spinal cord injury and in chronic spinal pain with two ICF-based instruments: WHODAS 2.0 and the WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and health. Clin Rehabil 2019; 33: 1241–1251. DOI: 10.1177/0269215519839104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519839104
Tarvonen-Schröder S, Kaljonen A, Laimi K. Utility of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule and the World Health Organization minimal generic set of domains of functioning and health in spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Med 2019; 51: 40–46. DOI: 10.2340/16501977-2501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2501
Lapin BR, Thompson NR, Schuster A, Honomichl R, Katzan IL. The validity of proxy responses on patient-reported outcome measures: are proxies a reliable alternative to stroke patients’ self-report? Qual Life Res 2021; 30: 1735–1745. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-021-02758-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02758-9
Kim EJ, Song DH, Kim SJ, Park JY, Lee E, Seok JH, et al. Proxy and patients ratings on quality of life in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in Korea. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 521–529. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-010-9617-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9617-5
Pietrini F, Tatini L, Santarelli G, Brugnolo D, Squillace M, Bozza B, et al. Self- and caregiver-perceived disability, subjective well-being, quality of life and psychopathology improvement in long-acting antipsychotic treatments: a 2-year follow-up study. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 2021; 25: 307–315. DOI: 10.1080/13651501.2021.1912358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13651501.2021.1912358
Zhou W, Liu Q, Yu Y, Xiao S, Chen L, Khoshnood K, et al. Proxy reliability of the 12-item world health organization disability assessment schedule II among adult patients with mental disorders. Qual Life Res 2020; 29: 2219–2229. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-020-02474-w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02474-w
Ball AE, Russell EM, Seymour DG, Primrose WR, Garratt AM. Problems in using health survey questionnaires in older patients with physical disabilities. Can proxies be used to complete the SF-36? Gerontology 2001; 47: 334–340. DOI: 10.1159/000052824. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000052824
Fast YJ, Steinke EE, Wright DW. Effects of attending phase II cardiac rehabilitation on patient versus spouse (proxy) quality-of-life perceptions. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 2009; 29: 115–120. DOI: 10.1097/HCR.0b013e31819a023c. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/HCR.0b013e31819a023c
Hofhuis J, Hautvast JLA, Schrijvers AJP, Bakker J. Quality of life on admission to the intensive care: can we query the relatives? Intensive Care Med 2003; 29: 974–979. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-003-1763-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-003-1763-6
Shain LM, Pao M, Tipton MV, Bedoya SZ, Kang SJ, Horowitz LM, et al. Comparing parent and child self-report measures of the state-trait anxiety inventory in children and adolescents with a chronic health condition. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2020; 27: 173–181. DOI: 10.1007/s10880-019-09631-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-019-09631-5
Hwang HF, Chen CY, Lin MR. Patient-proxy agreement on the health-related quality of life one year after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 98: 2540–2547. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.05.013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.05.013
Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D, Perera S, Reker DM, Studenski S. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke 2002; 33: 2593–2599. DOI: 10.1161/01.str.0000034395.06874.3e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000034395.06874.3E
van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJA, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988; 19: 604–607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.19.5.604
Mahoney P. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965; 14: 61–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/t02366-000
Lawton M, Brody E. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969; 9: 179–186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/9.3_Part_1.179
Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh P. Mini-Mental State: a practical guide for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 53: 189–198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster L. The Stroke Impact Scale Version 2.0: evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999; 30: 2131–2140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.30.10.2131
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Juan David Hernández, María Alejandra Spir, Kelly Payares, Ana Maria Posada, Fabio Alonso Salinas, Héctor Iván Garcia, Luz H. Lugo-Agudelo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All digitalized JRM contents is available freely online. The Foundation for Rehabilitation Medicine owns the copyright for all material published until volume 40 (2008), as from volume 41 (2009) authors retain copyright to their work and as from volume 49 (2017) the journal has been published Open Access, under CC-BY-NC licences (unless otherwise specified). The CC-BY-NC licenses allow third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
