Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-10-2009

Agreement of patient and physician ratings on mobility and self-care in neurological diseases

Auteur: Erik Farin

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2009

Abstract

Purpose

With a newly developed questionnaire, which integrates the patient and provider ratings on mobility and self-care on an IRT scale (MOSES-Combi) and thus ensures the same measurement scale for patients and providers, we examined the level of agreement between neurology patients and the physicians treating them, how agreement changes after rehabilitation, and what factors affect the extent of agreement.

Methods

A total of 258 neurology patients from nine inpatient rehabilitation centers and the physicians treating them filled out the MOSES-Combi at the beginning and end of rehabilitation. Multilevel analyses were conducted.

Results

While the average value of the person parameters for patients and physicians is quite similar at the beginning of rehabilitation, there are highly significant differences after rehabilitation. The patient generally describes himself as more limited. Agreement at the individual level at the start of rehabilitation is moderate to substantial, with ICCs between .552 and .750. At the end of rehabilitation, agreement reduces. Factors that predict agreement are site and setting rehabilitation goals in the respective areas of mobility and self-care being observed.

Conclusion

Our study indicates that general organizational conditions can have an influence on the extent of agreement.

vorige artikel Concordance of cancer patients’ function, symptoms, and supportive care needs

volgende artikel Impact of mental disorders and chronic physical conditions in health-related quality of life among primary care patients: results from an epidemiological study

Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

Pickard, A., Johnson, J. A., Feeny, D. H., Shuaib, A., Carriere, K. C., & Nasser, A. M. (2004). Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health-related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and health utilities index. Stroke, 35, 607–612.PubMedCrossRef

Higginson, I. J., & Carr, A. J. (2001). Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ, 322, 1297–1300.PubMedCrossRef

Chen, M.-H., Hsieh, C.-L., Mao, H.-F., & Huang, S.-L. (2007). Differences between patient and proxy reports in the assessment of disability after stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21, 351–356.PubMedCrossRef

Robitail, S., Siméoni, M.-C., Ravens-Sieberer, U., Bruil, J., & Auquier, P. (2007). Children proxies’ quality-of-life agreement depended on the country using the European KIDSCREEN-52 questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 469–478.PubMedCrossRef

Novella, J.-L., Jochum, C., Jolly, D., Morrone, I., Ankri, J., Bureau, F., et al. (2001). Agreement between patients’ and proxies’ reports of quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease. Quality of Life Research, 10, 443–452.PubMedCrossRef

Farin, E. (2009). Integration of patient and provider assessments of mobility and self-care resulted in unidimensional item-response theory scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. (in press) Available online: doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.11.014.

Farin, E., Fleitz, A., & Frey, C. (2007). Psychometric properties of an ICF-oriented, adaptive questionnaire for the assessment of mobility, self care and domestic life. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39, 537–546.PubMedCrossRef

Farin, E. & Fleitz, A. (2009). The development of an ICF-oriented, adaptive physician assessment instrument of mobility, self care, and domestic life. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 32(2), 98–107.

10.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef

11.

Tucker, L., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.CrossRef

12.

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13.

Fischer, G. H., & Molenaar, I. W. (1995). Rasch models—foundations, recent developments, and applications. New York: Springer.

14.

Bjorner, J. B., Chang, C.-H., Thissen, D., & Reeve, D. B. (2007). Developing tailored instruments: Item banking and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl. 1), 95–108.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Hilari, K., Owen, S., & Farrelly, S. J. (2007). Proxy and self-report agreement on the stroke and aphasia quality of life scale-39. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 78, 1072–1075.CrossRef

16.

Gauggel, S., Böcker, M., Zimmermann, P., Privou, C., & Lutz, D. (2004). Patient–staff agreement on Barthel index scores at admission and discharge in a sample of elderly stroke patients. Rehabilitation Psychology, 49, 21–27.CrossRef

17.

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

18.

Siösteen, A., Kreuter, M., Lampic, C., & Persson, L.-O. (2005). Patient–staff agreement in the perception of sinal cord lesioned patients’ problems, emotional well-being, and coping pattern. Spinal Cord, 43, 179–186.PubMedCrossRef

19.

van der Linden, F., Kragt, J. J., van Bon, M., Klein, M., Thompson, A. J. & van der Ploeg, H. M. (2008). Longitudinal proxy measurements in multiple sclerosis: Patient-proxy agreement on the impact of MS on daily life over a period of two years. BMC Neurology, 8, 2.

20.

Hays, R. D., Vickrey, B. G., Hermann, B. P., Perrine, K., Cramer, J., Meador, K., et al. (1995). Agreement between self reports and proxy reports of quality of life in epilepsy patients. Quality of Life Research, 4, 159–168.PubMedCrossRef

21.

van der Linden, F. A. H., Kragt, J. J., Hobart, J. C., Klein, M., Thompson, A. J., van der Ploeg, H. M., et al. (2006). Proxy measurements in multiple sclerosis: Agreement between patients and their partners on the impact of multiple sclerosis in daily life. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 77, 1157–1162.CrossRef

22.

Mathias, S. D., Bates, M. M., Pasta, D. J., Cisternas, M. G., Feeny, D., & Patrick, D. L. (1997). Use of the health utilities index with stroke patients and their caregivers. Stroke, 28, 1888–1894.PubMed

23.

Sneeuw, K. C. A., Aaronson, N. K., Sprangers, M. A. G., Detmar, S. B., Wever, L. D. V., & Schornagel, J. H. (1998). Comparison of patient and proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 ratings in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 617–631.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Siegert, R. J., & Taylor, W. J. (2004). Theoretical aspects of goal-setting and motivation in rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 1–8.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Justice, A. C. M., Chang, C. H. P., Rabeneck, L. M. M., & Zackin, R. S. (2001). Clinical importance of provider-reported HIV symptoms compared with patient-report. Medical Care, 39, 397–408.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Newman, A. C., Garmoe, W., Beatty, P., & Ziccardi, M. (2000). Self-awareness of traumatically brain injured patients in the acute inpatient rehabilitation setting. Brain Injury, 14, 333–344.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Haley, S. M., Siebens, H., Coster, W. J., Tao, W., Black-Schaffer, R. M., Gandek, B., et al. (2006). Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: I. Activity outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87, 1033–1042.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Mahoney, F. I., & Barthel, D. W. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14, 61–65.PubMed

29.

Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.

31.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 102–109.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Coeytaux, R. R., Kaufman, J. S., Chao, R., Mann, J. D., & DeVellis, R. F. (2006). Four methods of estimating the minimal important difference score were compared to establish a clinically significant change in headache impact test. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 374–380.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Tamim, H., McCusker, J., & Dendukuri, N. (2002). Proxy reporting of quality of life using the EQ-5D. Medical Care, 40, 1186–1195.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Menard, S. W. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

36.

Montgomery, D. C., & Peck, E. A. (1992). Introduction to linear regression analysis. New York: Wiley.

37.

Mantel, N. (1970). Why stepdown procedures in variable selection. Technometrics, 12, 621–625.CrossRef

38.

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurements. Lancet, 1, 307–310.PubMed

39.

Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85, 257–268.PubMed

40.

Wodchis, W. P., Maxwell, C. J., Venturini, A., Walker, J. D., Zhang, J., Hogan, D. B., et al. (2007). Study of observed and self-reported HRQL in older frail adults found group-level congruence and individual-level differences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 502–511.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Janse, A. J., Gemke, R. J. B. J., Uiterwaal, C. S. P. M., van der Tweel, I., Kimpen, J. L. L., & Sinnema, G. (2004). Quality of life: Patients and doctors don’t always agree: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 653–661.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Andresen, E. M., Vahle, V. J., & Lollar, D. (2001). Proxy reliability: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability. Quality of Life Research, 10, 609–619.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Boyer, F., Novella, J.-L., Morrone, I., Jolly, D., & Blanchard, F. (2004). Agreement between dementia patient report and proxy reports using the Nottingham health profile. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19, 1026–1034.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Suarez-Almazor, M. E., Conner-Spady, B., Kendall, C. J., Russel, A. S., & Skeith, K. (2001). Lack of congruence in the ratings of patients’ health status by patients and their physicians. Medical Decision Making, 21, 113–121.PubMed

45.

Sneeuw, K. C. A., Sprangers, M. A. G., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002). The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55, 1130–1143.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Yasuda, N., Zimmermann, S., Hawkes, W. G., Gruber-Baldini, A. L., Hebel, R., & Magaziner, J. (2004). Concordance of proxy-perceived change and measured change in multiple domains of function in older persons. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52, 1157–1162.PubMedCrossRef

47.

McColl, E., Junghard, O., Wiklund, I., & Revicki, D. A. (2005). Assessing symptoms in gastroesophageal reflux disease: How well do clinicians’ assessment agree with those of their patients? American Journal of Gastroenterology, 100, 11–18.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Reker, D. M., O’Donnell, J. C., & Hamilton, B. B. (1998). Stroke rehabilitation outcome variation in veterans affairs rehabilitation units: Accounting for case-mix. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 751–757.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Farin, E., Follert, P., Gerdes, N., Jäckel, W. H., & Thalau, J. (2004). Quality assessment in rehabilitation centres: The indicator system ‘Quality Profile’. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 1096–1104.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Farin, E., Projektgruppe QS-Reha-Verfahren in der AQMS, Jäckel, W. H., & Schalaster, V. (2009). Das qualitätssicherungsverfahren der GKV in der medizinischen rehabilitation: Ergebnisse und weiterentwicklung (The quality assurance program of the statutory health insurance funds in medical rehabilitation: Results and further development). Das Gesundheitswesen, 71, 163–174.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Sneeuw, K. C., Aaronson, N. K., Sprangers, M. A. G., Detmar, S. B., Wever, L. D., & Schornagel, J. H. (1999). Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: Assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses. British Journal of Cancer, 81, 87–94.PubMedCrossRef

52.

von Essen, L. (2004). Proxy ratings of patient quality of life. Acta Oncologica, 43, 229–234.CrossRef

53.

Lampic, C., & Sjödén, P. O. (2000). Patient and staff perceptions of cancer patients’ psychological concerns and needs. Acta Oncologica, 39, 9–22.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Hewlett, S. A. (2003). Patients and clinicians have different perspectives on outcomes in arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 30, 877–879.PubMed

55.

Neville, C., Clarke, A. E., Joseph, L., Belisle, P., Ferland, D., & Fortin, P. R. (2000). Learning from discordance in patient and physician global assessments of systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity. Journal of Rheumatology, 27, 675–679.PubMed

56.

McColl, E. (2006). Cognitive interviewing. A tool for improving questionnaire design. Quality of Life Research, 15, 571–573.CrossRef

57.

Bloem, E. F., van Zuuren, F. J., Koeneman, M. A., Rapkin, B. D., Visser, M. R. M., Koning, C. C. E., et al. (2008). Clarifying quality of life assessment: Do theoretical models capture the underlying cognitive processes? Quality of Life Research, 17, 1093–1102.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Agreement of patient and physician ratings on mobility and self-care in neurological diseases
Auteur: Erik Farin
Publicatiedatum: 01-10-2009
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9520-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2009

Using cognitive interviews to evaluate items for measuring sexual functioning across cancer populations: improvements and remaining challenges

Responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score and the SF-36: five years after total hip arthroplasty

Sampling in population-based cancer caregivers research

Somatization is associated with physical health-related quality of life independent of anxiety and depression in cancer, glaucoma and rheumatological disorders

The practical impact of differential item functioning analyses in a health-related quality of life instrument

How sharp is the short QuickDASH? A refined content and validity analysis of the short form of the disabilities of the shoulder, arm and hand questionnaire in the strata of symptoms and function and specific joint conditions