Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient Versus Proxy Ratings of Quality of Life

  • Chapter
Sleep and Quality of Life in Clinical Medicine

  • 2460 Accesses

Summary

Over the past few decades, the concept of health-related quality of life has evolved as a multi-dimensional and subjective construct that includes a person’s physical, psychological, social, and spiritual well-being. With the increasing availability of new and aggressive treatments that can lengthen survival, health-related quality of life is being recognized as an essential outcome in clinical practice and research. Great strides have been made in the development of several generic and disease-specific quality of life measures. While it is generally accepted that health-related quality of life should be directly ascertained from the patient, there are situations where self-report is not a viable option. Population subsets such as very young children, the elderly, patients with severe underlying disease, or those with cognitive disability may not be able to provide information regarding their health status. In such situations, proxiess which include close family members or health care professionals can provide the necessary information on behalf of the patient. The subject of patient–proxy agreement is reviewed in this chapter with a brief consideration of various factors that can influence the level of inter-rater agreement. Specific issues related to the use of proxies are presented for pediatric and adult samples. Finally, the application of proxy assessments of health status in sleep disorders medicine is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Rich EC, Crowson TW, Harris IB. The diagnostic value of the medical history. Perceptions of internal medicine physicians. Arch Intern Med, 1987; 147(11):1957–1960.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ, 1995; 152(9):1423–1433.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assesment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med, 1996; 334(13):835–840.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med, 1993; 118(8):622–629.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health-status and quality of life. Med Care, 1989; 27(3):S217–S232.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nelson LM, Longstreth WT, Koepsell TD, Vanbelle G. Proxy respondents in epidemiologic research. Epidemiol Rev, 1990; 12:71–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cadman D, Goldsmith C. Construction of social value or utility-based health indexes – the usefulness of factorial experimental-design plans. J Chronic Dis, 1986; 39(8):643–651.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pal DK. Quality of life assessment in children: a review of conceptual and methodological issues in multidimensional health status measures. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1996; 50(4):391–396.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Edelbrock C, Costello AJ, Dulcan MK, Conover NC, Kala R. Parent-child agreement on child psychiatric symptoms assessed via structured interview. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 1986; 27(2):181–190.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Varni JW, Katz ER, Seid M, Quiggins DJ, Friedman-Bender A. The pediatric cancer quality of life inventory-32 (PCQL-32): I. Reliability and validity. Cancer, 1998; 82(6):1184–1196.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Parsons SK, Barlow SE, Levy SL, Supran SE, Kaplan SH. Health-related quality of life in pediatric bone marrow transplant survivors: according to whom? Int J Cancer, 1999; 12(Suppl.):46–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Phipps S, Dunavant M, Jayawardene D, Srivastiva DK. Assessment of health-related quality of life in acute in-patient settings: use of the BASES instrument in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Int J Cancer, 1999(Suppl.); 12: 18–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sawyer M, Antoniou G, Toogood I, Rice M. A comparison of parent and adolescent reports describing the health-related quality of life of adolescents treated for cancer. Int J Cancer, 1999(Suppl.); 12:39–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Varni JW, Seid M, Kurtin PS. PedsQL 4.0: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care, 2001; 39(8):800–812.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Katz ER, Meeske K, Dickinson P. The PedsQL in pediatric cancer: reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales, Multidimensional Fatigue Scale, and Cancer Module. Cancer, 2002; 94(7):2090–2106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Theunissen NC, Vogels TG, Koopman HM, Verrips GH, Zwinderman KA, Verloove-Vanhorick SP et al. The proxy problem: child report versus parent report in health-related quality of life research. Qual Life Res, 1998; 7(5):387–397.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Verrips GH, Vogels AG, den Ouden AL, Paneth N, Verloove-Vanhorick SP. Measuring health-related quality of life in adolescents: agreement between raters and between methods of administration. Child Care Health Dev, 2000; 26(6):457–469.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Eiser C, Morse R. Can parents rate their child’s health-related quality of life? Results of a systematic review. Qual Life Res, 2001; 10(4):347–357.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sweeting H, West P. Health at age 11: reports from schoolchildren and their parents. Arch Dis Child, 1998; 78(5): 427–434.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Chang PC, Yeh CH. Agreement between child self-report and parent proxy-report to evaluate quality of life in children with cancer. Psychooncology, 2005; 14(2):125–134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Russell KM, Hudson M, Long A, Phipps S. Assessment of health-related quality of life in children with cancer: consistency and agreement between parent and child reports. Cancer, 2006; 106(10):2267–2274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Waters E, Doyle J, Wolfe R, Wright M, Wake M, Salmon L. Influence of parental gender and self-reported health and illness on parent-reported child health. Pediatrics, 2000; 106(6):1422–1428.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Osman L, Silverman M. Measuring quality of life for young children with asthma and their families. Eur Respir J, 1996; 21(Suppl.):s35–s41.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Magaziner J. Use of proxies to measure health and functional outcomes in effectiveness research in persons with Alzheimer disease and related disorders. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord, 1997; 11(Suppl. 6):168–174.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Williams LS, Bakas T, Brizendine E, Plue L, Tu W, Hendrie H. et al. How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients’ health-related quality of life? Stroke 2006; 37(8):2081–2085.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Anonymous. Survey into health problems of elderly people: a comparison of self-report with proxy information. Int J Epidemiol, 2000; 29(4):684–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sprangers MA, Aaronson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: a review. J Clin Epidemiol, 1992; 45(7):743–760.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sneeuw KC, Sprangers MA, Aaronson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. J Clin Epidemiol, 2002; 55(11):1130–1143.

    Google Scholar 

  29. McPherson CJ, Addington-Hall JM. Judging the quality of care at the end of life: can proxies provide reliable information? Soc Sci Med, 2003; 56(1):95–109.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. von Essen L. Proxy ratings of patient quality of life–factors related to patient-proxy agreement. Acta Oncol, 2004; 43(3): 229–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Epstein AM, Hall JA, Tognetti J, Son LH, Conant L, Jr. Using proxies to evaluate quality of life. Can they provide valid information about patients’ health status and satisfaction with medical care? Med Care, 1989; 27(Suppl. 3):S91–S98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Magaziner J, Bassett SS, Hebel JR, Gruber-Baldini A. Use of proxies to measure health and functional status in epidemiologic studies of community-dwelling women aged 65 years and older. Am J Epidemiol, 1996; 143(3):283–292.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Rubenstein LZ, Schairer C, Wieland GD, Kane R. Systematic biases in functional status assessment of elderly adults: effects of different data sources. J Gerontol, 1984; 39(6): 686–691.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 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(2):136–142.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rothman ML, Hedrick SC, Bulcroft KA, Hickam DH, Rubenstein LZ. The validity of proxy-generated scores as measures of patient health status. Med Care, 1991; 29(2): 115–124.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Zimmerman SI, Magaziner J. Methodological issues in measuring the functional status of cognitively impaired nursing home residents: the use of proxies and performance-based measures. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord, 1994; 8 (Suppl. 1): S281–S290.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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(11): 983–990.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Novella JL, Jochum C, Jolly D, Morrone I, Ankri J, Bureau F. et al. Agreement between patients’ and proxies’ reports of quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease. Qual Life Res, 2001; 10(5):443–452.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Boyer F, Novella JL, Morrone I, Jolly D, Blanchard F. Agreement between dementia patient report and proxy reports using the Nottingham Health Profile. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2004; 19(11):1026–1034.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Ready RE, Ott BR, Grace J. Patient versus informant perspectives of quality of life in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2004; 19(3): 256–265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fleming A, Cook KF, Nelson ND, Lai EC. Proxy reports in Parkinson’s disease: caregiver and patient self-reports of quality of life and physical activity. Mov Disord, 2005; 20(11):1462–1468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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(5):811–819.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Are proxy assessments of health status after stroke with the EuroQol questionnaire feasible, accurate, and unbiased? Stroke, 1997; 28(10):1883–1887.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D, Perera S, Reker DM, Studenski S. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke, 2002; 33(11):2593–2599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, de Haan RJ, Limburg M. Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke, 1997; 28(8):1541–1549.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Osoba D, Muller MJ, Hsu MA, Yung WK et al. The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer. Med Care, 1997; 35(5):490–506.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Wilson KA, Dowling AJ, Abdolell M, Tannock IF. Perception of quality of life by patients, partners and treating physicians. Qual Life Res, 2000; 9(9):1041–1052.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Sneeuw KC, Albertsen PC, Aaronson NK. Comparison of patient and spouse assessments of health related quality of life in men with metastatic prostate cancer. J Urol, 2001; 165(2): 478–482.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Miaskowski C, Zimmer EF, Barrett KM, Dibble SL, Wallhagen M. Differences in patients’ and family caregivers’ perceptions of the pain experience influence patient and caregiver outcomes. Pain, 1997; 72(1–2):217–226.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Kristjanson LJ, Nikoletti S, Porock D, Smith M, Lobchuk M, Pedler P. Congruence between patients’ and family caregivers’ perceptions of symptom distress in patients with terminal cancer. J Palliat Care, 1998; 14(3):24–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. McCusker J, Stoddard AM. Use of a surrogate for the sickness impact profile. Med Care, 1984; 22(9):789–795.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. O’Brien, J, Francis A. The use of next-of-kin to estimate pain in cancer patients. Pain, 1988; 35(2):171–178.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Bassett SS, Magaziner J, Hebel JR. Reliability of proxy response on mental health indices for aged, community-dwelling women. Psychol Aging, 1990; 5(1):127–132.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Slevin ML, Plant H, Lynch D, Drinkwater J, Gregory WM. Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient? Br J Cancer, 1988; 57(1):109–112.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Blazeby JM, Williams MH, Alderson D, Farndon JR. Observer variation in assessment of quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg, 1995; 82(9):1200–1203.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Grassi L, Indelli M, Maltoni M, Falcini F, Fabbri L, Indelli R. Quality of life of homebound patients with advanced cancer: Assessments by patients, family members, and oncologists. J Psychosoc Oncol, 1996; 14(3):31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Sprangers MA, Detmar SB, Wever LD, Schornagel JH. Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses. Br J Cancer, 1999; 81(1):87–94.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Sprangers MA, Detmar SB, Wever LD, Schornagel JH. Comparison of patient and proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 ratings in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol, 1998; 51(7):617–631.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Clipp EC, George LK. Patients with cancer and their spouse caregivers. Perceptions of the illness experience. Cancer 1992; 69(4):1074–1079.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. National Commission on Sleep Disorders Research. Wake up America: A National Sleep Alert. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  61. National Sleep Foundation. Sleep in America Poll. Washington, DC: National Sleep Foundation, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Institute of Medicine: Committee on Sleep Medicine and Research. Sleep Disorders and Sleep Deprivation: An Unmet Public Health Problem. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Wiggins CL, Schmidt-Nowara WW, Coultas DB, Samet JM. Comparison of self- and spouse reports of snoring and other symptoms associated with sleep apnea syndrome. Sleep, 1990; 13(3):245–252.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Breugelmans JG, Ford DE, Smith PL, Punjabi NM. Differences in patient and bed partner-assessed quality of life in sleep-disordered breathing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2004; 170(5):547–552.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 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(6):473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Beninati W, Harris CD, Herold DL, Shepard JW, Jr. The effect of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea on the sleep quality of bed partners. Mayo Clin Proc, 1999; 74(10): 955–958.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ulfberg J, Carter N, Talback M, Edling C. Adverse health effects among women living with heavy snorers. Health Care Women Int, 2000; 21(2):81–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Naresh M. Punjabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Section Psychopharmacology Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3508TB, PoBox 80082, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Joris C. Verster

  2. Divison of Clinical Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street - Rm # BB813, New York, NY 10032, USA

    S. R. Pandi-Perumal

  3. Department of Psychiatry, Kunin-Lunenfeld Applied Research Unit (KLARU), 3560 Bathurst St., Toronto, M6A 2E1, Canada

    David L. Streiner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Punjabi, N.M. (2008). Patient Versus Proxy Ratings of Quality of Life. In: Verster, J.C., Pandi-Perumal, S.R., Streiner, D.L. (eds) Sleep and Quality of Life in Clinical Medicine. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-343-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-343-5_2

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-60327-340-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-60327-343-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation