Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37985620›Full record

Trial reportThe patient2024

Unravelling the Self-Report Versus Proxy-Report Conundrum for Older Aged Care Residents: Findings from a Mixed-Methods Study.

Julie Ratcliffe, Kiri Lay, Matthew Crocker, Lidia Engel, Rachel Milte, Claire Hutchinson, Jyoti Khadka, David G T Whitehurst, Brendan Mulhern, Rosalie Viney and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The patient, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Proxy reporting in health: a scoping review of instructions, perspectives, and reporting experiences.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Julie RatcliffeHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia. julie.ratcliffe@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-7365-1988
Kiri LayHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1077-3771
Matthew CrockerHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6207-7850
Lidia EngelMonash University Health Economics Group (MUHEG), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7959-3149
Rachel MilteHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7533-6260
Claire HutchinsonHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4289-8886
Jyoti KhadkaHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1012-2119
David G T WhitehurstFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7890-6756
Brendan MulhernCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3656-8063
Rosalie VineyCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0039-9635
Richard NormanSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3112-3893
Flinders University · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AUCurtin University · AUMonash University · AUSimon Fraser University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesNo guidance currently exists as to the cognition threshold beyond which self-reported quality of life for older people with cognitive impairment and dementia is unreliable.

methodsOlder aged care residents (≥ 65 years) were randomly assigned to complete the EQ-5D-5L in computer-based (eye movements were tracked) or hard copy (participants were encouraged to 'think aloud') format. Cognition was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Think aloud and eye tracking data were analysed by two raters, blinded to MMSE scores. At the participant level, predefined criteria were used to assign traffic light grades (green, amber, red). These grades indicate the extent to which extracted data elements provided evidence of self-report reliability. The MMSE-defined cognition threshold was determined following review of the distributions of assigned traffic light grades.

resultsEighty-one residents participated and provided complete data (38 eye tracking, 43 think aloud). In the think aloud cohort, all participants with an MMSE score ≤ 23 (n = 10) received an amber or red grade, while 64% of participants with an MMSE score ≥ 24 (21 of 33) received green grades. In the eye tracking cohort, 68% of participants with an MMSE score ≥ 24 (15 of 22) received green grades. Of the 16 eye tracking participants with an MMSE score ≤ 23, 14 (88%) received an amber or red grade.

conclusionsMost older residents with an MMSE score ≥ 24 have sufficient cognitive capacity to self-complete the EQ-5D-5L. More research is needed to better understand self-completion reliability for other quality-of-life instruments in cognitively impaired populations.

Indexed as

CognitionSelf ReportAgedHumansQuality of LifeReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID37985620
OpenAlexW4388821968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.