ArticleAge and ageing2021
Inter-rater reliability of care home staff's proxy judgements with residents' assessments of their own health-related quality of life: an analysis of the PATCH trial EQ-5D data.
Article in Age and ageing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proxy reports on the EQ-5D-5L in residential aged care facilities: a validation study.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Trial
- Health-related quality of life and medication use among individuals with Angelman syndrome.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Trial
- Article
- Measuring health-related quality of life of older people with frailty receiving acute care: feasibility and psychometric performance of the EuroQol EQ-5D.BMC emergency medicine · 2023Article
- An Australian aged care home for people subject to homelessness: health, wellbeing and cost-benefit.BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- Measuring the quality of life of long-term care service users in Japan: a cross-sectional questionnaire study.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesto compare care staff proxies with care home residents' self-assessment of their health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
methodswe assessed the degree of inter-rater reliability between residents and care staff proxies for the EQ-5D-5L index, domains and EQ Visual Analogue Scale at baseline, 3 months and 6 months, collected as part of the PATCH trial. We calculated kappa scores. Interpreted as <0 no agreement, 0-0.2 slight, 0.21-0.60 fair to moderate and >0.6 substantial to almost perfect agreement. Qualitative interviews with care staff and researchers explored the challenges of completing these questions.
resultsover 50% of the HRQoL data from residents was missing at baseline compared with a 100% completion rate by care staff proxies. A fair-to-moderate level of agreement was found for the EQ-5D-5L index. A higher level of agreement was achieved for the EQ-5D-5L domains of mobility and pain. Resident 'non-completers' were more likely to: be older, have stayed a longer duration in the care home, have lower Barthel Index and Physical Activity and Mobility in Residential Care (PAM-RC) scores, a greater number of co-morbidities and have joined the trial through consultee agreement. Interviews with staff and researchers indicated that it was easier to rate residents' mobility levels than other domains, but in general it was difficult to obtain data from residents or to make an accurate proxy judgement for those with dementia.
conclusionswhilst assessing HRQoL by care staff proxy completion provides a more complete dataset, uncertainty remains as to how representative these values are for different groups of residents within care homes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.