Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38280125›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2024

An Investigation of Inter-Rater and Intra-Proxy Agreement in Measuring Quality of Life of Children in the Community Using the EQ-5D-Y-3L.

Diana Khanna, Jyoti Khadka, Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa, Gang Chen, Kim Dalziel, Nancy Devlin, Julie Ratcliffe, Quality of Life in Kids: Key Evidence to Strengthen Decisions in Australia (QUOKKA) Project Team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 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
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Measuring health-related quality of life in infants and toddlers: conceptual challenges and proposed recommendations.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Diana KhannaHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia. khan0420@flinders.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8354-9012
Jyoti KhadkaHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1012-2119
Christine Mpundu-KaambwaHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8152-6068
Gang ChenCentre for Health Economics, Monash University, Caulfield East, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8385-5965
Kim DalzielHealth Economics Unit, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4972-8871
Nancy DevlinHealth Economics Unit, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1561-5361
Julie RatcliffeHealth and Social Care Economics Group, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7365-1988
Quality of Life in Kids: Key Evidence to Strengthen Decisions in Australia (QUOKKA) Project Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children is not always feasible. To date, proxy perspectives (Proxy versions 1 and 2) using the EQ-5D-Y-3L have not been explored for its impact on agreement with child self-report. Proxy version 1 requires the proxy to consider their own view of the child's HRQoL (proxy-proxy), while with Proxy version 2, the proxy is asked to respond as they believe their child would self-report their HRQoL (proxy-child). This study compared the inter-rater and intra-proxy agreement (overall and dimension level) using the EQ-5D-Y-3L self, proxy-proxy, and proxy-child reports.

methodsA community-based sample of child (aged 6-12 years) and parent dyads were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. The child self-completed the EQ-5D-Y-3L independently of the parent who completed the EQ-5D-Y-3L from proxy-proxy and proxy-child perspectives. Agreement was determined using Concordance Correlation Coefficients (CCCs) for the overall (preference-weighted) HRQoL, while agreement at the dimension level was evaluated using Gwet's agreement coefficient (AC

resultsThis study involved 85 child-parent dyads. The agreement between self and proxy overall HRQoL was low (fair) with both proxy-proxy (CCC = 0.28) and proxy-child (CCC = 0.26) reports. The largest discrepancy in the child-proxy agreement at dimension level with both the proxy versions was observed for 'feeling worried, sad or unhappy'. Within this dimension, the proxy-child perspective resulted in a stronger agreement (AC

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that choice of proxy perspective may have an impact on the problems reported on HRQoL dimensions and EQ VAS scores. However, in this community-based sample of generally healthy children, no significant difference was observed in the inter-rater agreement for child-self and proxy preference-weighted EQ-5D-Y-3L values based on proxy perspectives. While this suggests that preference-weighted data are not sensitive to the choice of perspective, these findings may differ for different HRQoL instruments and for alternative value sets with different properties.

Indexed as

ParentsProxyQuality of LifeSelf ReportChildFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38280125
PMCPMC11169018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.