The validity of proxy responses on patient-reported outcome measures: Are proxies a reliable alternative to stroke patients’ self-report?

Abstract

Purpose

Caregivers, or proxies, often complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on behalf of patients with stroke. The objective of our study was to assess the validity and responsiveness of proxy-responses compared to patient-responses across multiple domains of health.

Methods

Stroke patients and their proxies were recruited to complete PROMs between 7/2018–11/2019. PROMs included Neuro-QoL cognitive function, PROMIS physical function, satisfaction with social roles, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, sleep disturbance, Global Health, and PHQ-9. Internal consistency and convergent validity were compared between patient- and proxy-reported measures. Known-groups validity was assessed across levels of stroke disability. Internal responsiveness was evaluated using paired t-tests for a subset of patients who attended rehabilitation following stroke. Analyses were stratified by patients ≤ 3 vs > 3 months from stroke.

Results

This cross-sectional study included 200 stroke patients (age 62.2 ± 13.3, 41.5% female) and their proxies (age 56.5 ± 13.9, 70% female, 72% spouses). PROMs had high internal consistency and were significantly correlated for patients and proxies. Patient- and proxy-reported measures worsened with increasing stroke disability. For 34 (17%) patients who attended rehabilitation, patients self-reported improvement on 5 domains whereas proxies reported no improvement. Compared to patient self-reports, validity was worse for proxy-reports on patients ≤ 3 months but better > 3 months from stroke.

Conclusions

Both patient- and proxy-reported PROMs demonstrated strong validity. Only patient-reported PROMs were responsive to change, and proxies had worse validity for patients ≤ 3 months from stroke but better validity for patients > 3 months from stroke. These findings justify the utilization of proxy responses in stroke patients > 3 months from stroke.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Data availability

Data not published within the article are available and will be shared by reasonable request.

Code availability

SAS and R code will be shared upon reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.

    Mayo, N. E., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Cote, R., Durcan, L., & Carlton, J. (2002). Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(8), 1035–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Choi-Kwon, S., & Kim, J. S. (2011). Poststroke fatigue: an emerging, critical issue in stroke medicine. International Journal of Stroke, 6(4), 328–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00624.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    De Wit, L., Putman, K., Baert, I., Lincoln, N. B., Angst, F., Beyens, H., et al. (2008). Anxiety and depression in the first six months after stroke. A longitudinal multicentre study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30(24), 1858–1866. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280701708736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Jonsson, A. C., Lindgren, I., Hallstrom, B., Norrving, B., & Lindgren, A. (2006). Prevalence and intensity of pain after stroke: A population based study focusing on patients’ perspectives. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 77(5), 590–595. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.079145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Katzan, I. L., Thompson, N. R., Uchino, K., & Lapin, B. (2018). The most affected health domains after ischemic stroke. Neurology, 90(16), e1364–e1371. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000005327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Stewart, J. C., & Cramer, S. C. (2013). Patient-reported measures provide unique insights into motor function after stroke. Stroke, 44(4), 1111–1116. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.674671.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ali, M., Fulton, R., Quinn, T., Brady, M., & Collaboration, V. (2013). How well do standard stroke outcome measures reflect quality of life? A retrospective analysis of clinical trial data. Stroke, 44(11), 3161–3165. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.001126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Katzan, I. L., Thompson, N. R., Lapin, B., & Uchino, K. (2017). Added value of patient-reported outcome measures in stroke clinical practice. Journal of the American Heart Association, 6(7), e005356. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.005356.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Reeves, M., Lisabeth, L., Williams, L., Katzan, I., Kapral, M., Deutsch, A., et al. (2018). Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for acute stroke: rationale, methods and future directions. Stroke, 49(6), 1549–1556. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.018912.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., et al. (2010). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Cella, D., Lai, J. S., Nowinski, C. J., Victorson, D., Peterman, A., Miller, D., et al. (2012). Neuro-QOL: brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology. Neurology, 78(23), 1860–1867. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318258f744.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Katzan, I. L., Thompson, N., & Uchino, K. (2016). Innovations in stroke: the use of PROMIS and NeuroQoL scales in clinical stroke trials. Stroke, 47(2), e27-30. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Katzan, I. L., & Lapin, B. (2018). PROMIS GH (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health) Scale in stroke: A validation study. Stroke, 49(1), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.018766.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lapin, B., Thompson, N. R., Schuster, A., & Katzan, I. L. (2019). Clinical utility of patient-reported outcome measurement information system domain scales. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 12(1), e004753. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.004753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Katzan, I. L., Schuster, A., Bain, M., & Lapin, B. (2019). Clinical symptom profiles after mild-moderate stroke. Journal of the American Heart Association, 8(11), e012421. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.012421.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Williams, L. S., Bakas, T., Brizendine, E., Plue, L., Tu, W., Hendrie, H., et al. (2006). How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients’ health-related quality of life? Stroke, 37(8), 2081–2085. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000230583.10311.9f.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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(10), 1883–1887.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Carod-Artal, F. J., Ferreira Coral, L., StievenTrizotto, D., & Menezes Moreira, C. (2009). Self- and proxy-report agreement on the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke, 40(10), 3308–3314. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.558031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Pickard, A. S., 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(2), 607–612. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000110984.91157.BD.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Skolarus, L. E., Sanchez, B. N., Morgenstern, L. B., Garcia, N. M., Smith, M. A., Brown, D. L., et al. (2010). Validity of proxies and correction for proxy use when evaluating social determinants of health in stroke patients. Stroke, 41(3), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.571703.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    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(10), 1072–1075. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2006.111476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Oczkowski, C., & O’Donnell, M. (2010). Reliability of proxy respondents for patients with stroke: A systematic review. The Journal of Stroke & Cerebrovascular Diseases, 19(5), 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2009.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Sneeuw, K. C., Aaronson, N. K., de Haan, R. J., & Limburg, M. (1997). Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke, 28(8), 1541–1549.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lapin, B. R., Thompson, N. R., Schuster, A., & Katzan, I. L. (2020). Magnitude and variability of stroke patient-proxy disagreement across multiple health domains. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.09.378.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Quinn, T. J., Dawson, J., & Walters, M. (2008). Dr John Rankin; his life, legacy and the 50th anniversary of the Rankin Stroke Scale. Scottish Medical Journal, 53(1), 44–47. https://doi.org/10.1258/RSMSMJ.53.1.44.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    HealthMeasures. (2020). PROMIS. Retrieved December 3, 2020, from www.healthmeasures.net.

  29. 29.

    Pickard, A. S., & Knight, S. J. (2005). Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: a conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Medical Care, 43(5), 493–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Reeve, B. B., Wyrwich, K. W., Wu, A. W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C. B., Snyder, C. F., et al. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 1889–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. A. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86(2), 127–137.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    R Core Team. (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. www.R-project.org. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  36. 36.

    Qiu, W., Guan, H., Chen, Z., Yu, Y., Wu, H., Yu, W. S., et al. (2019). Psychometric properties of the Chinese-version Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale 39-generic version (SAQOL-39g). Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 26(2), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2018.1544842.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Muus, I., Petzold, M., & Ringsberg, K. C. (2009). Health-related quality of life after stroke: Reliability of proxy responses. Clinical Nursing Research, 18(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773809334912.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Schlote, A., Richter, M., Wunderlich, M. T., Poppendick, U., Moller, C., Schwelm, K., et al. (2009). WHODAS II with people after stroke and their relatives. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(11), 855–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280802355262.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kozlowski, A. J., Singh, R., Victorson, D., Miskovic, A., Lai, J. S., Harvey, R. L., et al. (2015). Agreement between responses from community-dwelling persons with stroke and their proxies on the NIH neurological quality of life (Neuro-QoL) short forms. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96(11), 1986–1992e1914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2015.07.005.

  40. 40.

    Duncan, P. W., Lai, S. M., Tyler, D., Perera, S., Reker, D. M., & Studenski, S. (2002). Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke, 33(11), 2593–2599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Sneeuw, K. C., Sprangers, M. A., & 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(11), 1130–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00479-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Katzan, I. L., Schuster, A., Newey, C., Uchino, K., & Lapin, B. (2018). Patient-reported outcomes across cerebrovascular event types: More similar than different. Neurology, 91(23), e2182–e2191. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000006626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Dhand, A., Lang, C. E., Luke, D. A., Kim, A., Li, K., McCafferty, L., et al. (2019). Social network mapping and functional recovery within 6 months of ischemic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 33(11), 922–932. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968319872994.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Rhudy, L. M., Wells-Pittman, J., & Flemming, K. D. (2020). Psychosocial sequelae of stroke in working-age adults: A pilot study. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0000000000000523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Tran, P. L., Leigh Blizzard, C., Srikanth, V., Hanh, V. T., Lien, N. T., Thang, N. H., et al. (2015). Health-related quality of life after stroke: Reliability and validity of the Duke Health Profile for use in Vietnam. Quality of Life Research, 24(11), 2807–2814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1016-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Gershon, R. C., Lai, J. S., Bode, R., Choi, S., Moy, C., Bleck, T., et al. (2012). Neuro-QOL: quality of life item banks for adults with neurological disorders: Item development and calibrations based upon clinical and general population testing. Quality of Life Research, 21(3), 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9958-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Buysse, D. J., Yu, L., Moul, D. E., Germain, A., Stover, A., Dodds, N. E., et al. (2010). Development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures for sleep disturbance and sleep-related impairments. Sleep, 33(6), 781–792. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/33.6.781.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Kim, J., Chung, H., Amtmann, D., Revicki, D. A., & Cook, K. F. (2013). Measurement invariance of the PROMIS pain interference item bank across community and clinical samples. Quality of Life Research, 22(3), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0191-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the PhRMA Foundation 2018 Research Starter Grant in Health Outcomes.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brittany R. Lapin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 43 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lapin, B.R., Thompson, N.R., Schuster, A. et al. The validity of proxy responses on patient-reported outcome measures: Are proxies a reliable alternative to stroke patients’ self-report?. Qual Life Res (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02758-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Proxy
  • Validity
  • Stroke
  • PROMIS