Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30615057›Full record

ArticleAge and ageing2019

Measuring health-related quality of life of care home residents: comparison of self-report with staff proxy responses.

Adeela Usman, Sarah Lewis, Kathryn Hinsliff-Smith, Annabelle Long, Gemma Housley, Jake Jordan, Heather Gage, Tom Dening, John R F Gladman, Adam L Gordon

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Age and ageing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Exploring self-report and proxy-report quality-of-life measures for people living with dementia in care homes.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Adeela UsmanDivision of Medical Sciences and Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
Sarah LewisDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Kathryn Hinsliff-SmithDivision of Medical Sciences and Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
Annabelle LongDivision of Medical Sciences and Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.
Gemma HousleyEast Midlands Academic Health Science Network, Nottingham, UK.
Jake JordanDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Surrey Health Economics Centre, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Heather GageDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Surrey Health Economics Centre, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Tom DeningDivision of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
John R F GladmanDivision of Rehabilitation and Ageing, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Adam L GordonDivision of Medical Sciences and Graduate Entry Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK.

Funding

The Dunhill Medical Trust FOP1/0115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductioncare home residents are often unable to complete health-related quality of life questionnaires for themselves because of prevalent cognitive impairment. This study compared care home resident and staff proxy responses for two measures, the EQ-5D-5L and HowRU.

methodsa prospective cohort study recruited residents ≥60 years across 24 care homes who were not receiving short stay, respite or terminal care. Resident and staff proxy EQ-5D-5L and HowRu responses were collected monthly for 3 months. Weighted kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) adjusted for clustering at the care home level were used to measure agreement between resident and proxies for each time point. The effect of staff and resident baseline variables on agreement was considered using a multilevel mixed effect regression model.

results117, 109 and 104 matched pairs completed the questionnaires at 1, 2 and 3 months, respectively. When clustering was controlled for, agreement between resident and staff proxy EQ-5D-5L responses was fair for mobility (ICC: 0.29) and slight for all other domains (ICC ≤ 0.20). EQ-5D Index and Quality-Adjusted Life Year scores (proxy scores higher than residents) showed better agreement than EQ-5D-VAS (residents scores higher than proxy). HowRU showed only slight agreement (ICC ≤ 0.20) between residents and proxies. Staff and resident characteristics did not influence level of agreement for either index. DISCUSSION: the levels of agreement for EQ-5D-5L and HowRU raise questions about their validity in this population.

Indexed as

Homes for the AgedNursing HomesProxyQuality of LifeSelf ReportAdolescentAdultAged, 80 and overFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultnursing homesolder peopleproxyquality of lifeResidential facilities

Identifiers

PMID30615057
PMCPMC6503932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.