成人肌肉骨骼创伤和损伤中患者和代理报告结果测量之间的一致性:范围界定综述。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Quality of Life Research Pub Date : 2024-08-23 DOI:10.1007/s11136-024-03766-1
Jochem H Raats, Noa H M Ponds, D T Brameier, P A Bain, H J Schuijt, D van der Velde, M J Weaver
{"title":"成人肌肉骨骼创伤和损伤中患者和代理报告结果测量之间的一致性:范围界定综述。","authors":"Jochem H Raats, Noa H M Ponds, D T Brameier, P A Bain, H J Schuijt, D van der Velde, M J Weaver","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03766-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in medicine. As older adults, who may rely on a proxy caregiver for answers due to cognitive impairment, are representing an increasing share of the traumatically injured patient population, proxy-reported outcome measures (proxROMs) offer a valuable alternative source of patient-centered information although its association with PROMs is unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to discuss all available literature comparing PROM and proxROMs in adult patients with musculoskeletal trauma to guide future research in this field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews was used to guide this review. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched without date limit for articles comparing PROM and proxROMs in setting of musculoskeletal trauma. Abstract and full-text screening were performed by two independent reviewers. Variables included study details, patient and proxy characteristics, and reported findings on agreement between PROMs and proxROMs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 574 unique records screened, 13 were included. Patient and proxy characteristics varied greatly, while patients' cognitive status and type of proxy perspective were poorly addressed. 18 different PROMs were evaluated, mostly reporting on physical functioning and disability (nine, 50%) or quality of life (six, 33%). Injury- and proxy-specific tools were rare, and psychometric properties of PROMs were often not described. Studies reported moderate to good agreement between PROMs and proxROMs. There is less agreement on subjective outcome measures (e.g., depression score) compared to observable items, and proxy bias results in in worse outcomes compared to patient self-reports.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current literature, though limited, demonstrates moderate to good agreement between injured patients' self- and proxy-reports. Future studies should be mindful of current guidelines on proxy reporting when developing their studies and consider including neglected populations such as cognitively impaired patients to improve clinical validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agreement between patient- and proxy-reported outcome measures in adult musculoskeletal trauma and injury: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Jochem H Raats, Noa H M Ponds, D T Brameier, P A Bain, H J Schuijt, D van der Velde, M J Weaver\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11136-024-03766-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in medicine. As older adults, who may rely on a proxy caregiver for answers due to cognitive impairment, are representing an increasing share of the traumatically injured patient population, proxy-reported outcome measures (proxROMs) offer a valuable alternative source of patient-centered information although its association with PROMs is unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to discuss all available literature comparing PROM and proxROMs in adult patients with musculoskeletal trauma to guide future research in this field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews was used to guide this review. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched without date limit for articles comparing PROM and proxROMs in setting of musculoskeletal trauma. Abstract and full-text screening were performed by two independent reviewers. Variables included study details, patient and proxy characteristics, and reported findings on agreement between PROMs and proxROMs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 574 unique records screened, 13 were included. Patient and proxy characteristics varied greatly, while patients' cognitive status and type of proxy perspective were poorly addressed. 18 different PROMs were evaluated, mostly reporting on physical functioning and disability (nine, 50%) or quality of life (six, 33%). Injury- and proxy-specific tools were rare, and psychometric properties of PROMs were often not described. Studies reported moderate to good agreement between PROMs and proxROMs. There is less agreement on subjective outcome measures (e.g., depression score) compared to observable items, and proxy bias results in in worse outcomes compared to patient self-reports.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Current literature, though limited, demonstrates moderate to good agreement between injured patients' self- and proxy-reports. Future studies should be mindful of current guidelines on proxy reporting when developing their studies and consider including neglected populations such as cognitively impaired patients to improve clinical validity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03766-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03766-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:患者报告结果测量法(PROMs)在医学中应用广泛。由于老年人的认知能力受损,他们可能会依赖于代理看护人来回答问题,因此他们在外伤患者中所占的比例越来越大,尽管近端报告结局测量法(proxROMs)与 PROMs 的关系尚不明确,但它提供了一种以患者为中心的有价值的替代信息来源。本范围综述的目的是讨论所有现有文献,比较成年肌肉骨骼创伤患者的 PROM 和近端报告结果量表,为该领域的未来研究提供指导:方法:采用 PRISMA 扩展方法进行范围界定综述。我们在 MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 中检索了在肌肉骨骼创伤情况下比较 PROM 和 proxROMs 的文章,没有日期限制。摘要和全文由两名独立审稿人进行筛选。变量包括研究细节、患者和代理特征,以及 PROM 与近似 ROM 之间一致性的报告结果:结果:在筛选出的 574 条记录中,有 13 条被纳入。患者和代理人的特征差异很大,而患者的认知状况和代理人的观点类型则很少涉及。对 18 种不同的 PROM 进行了评估,其中大部分是关于身体功能和残疾(9 种,50%)或生活质量(6 种,33%)的报告。针对损伤和代用视角的工具很少见,PROM 的心理测量特性通常也没有描述。据研究报告,PROM 与近似 ROM 之间的一致性为中等至良好。与可观察到的项目相比,主观结果测量(如抑郁评分)的一致性较差,与患者自我报告相比,代理偏差会导致更差的结果:目前的文献虽然有限,但表明受伤患者的自我报告和代理报告之间存在中度到良好的一致性。未来的研究在开展时应注意当前的代理报告指南,并考虑纳入认知障碍患者等被忽视的人群,以提高临床有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Agreement between patient- and proxy-reported outcome measures in adult musculoskeletal trauma and injury: a scoping review.

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in medicine. As older adults, who may rely on a proxy caregiver for answers due to cognitive impairment, are representing an increasing share of the traumatically injured patient population, proxy-reported outcome measures (proxROMs) offer a valuable alternative source of patient-centered information although its association with PROMs is unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to discuss all available literature comparing PROM and proxROMs in adult patients with musculoskeletal trauma to guide future research in this field.

Methods: The PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews was used to guide this review. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched without date limit for articles comparing PROM and proxROMs in setting of musculoskeletal trauma. Abstract and full-text screening were performed by two independent reviewers. Variables included study details, patient and proxy characteristics, and reported findings on agreement between PROMs and proxROMs.

Results: Of 574 unique records screened, 13 were included. Patient and proxy characteristics varied greatly, while patients' cognitive status and type of proxy perspective were poorly addressed. 18 different PROMs were evaluated, mostly reporting on physical functioning and disability (nine, 50%) or quality of life (six, 33%). Injury- and proxy-specific tools were rare, and psychometric properties of PROMs were often not described. Studies reported moderate to good agreement between PROMs and proxROMs. There is less agreement on subjective outcome measures (e.g., depression score) compared to observable items, and proxy bias results in in worse outcomes compared to patient self-reports.

Conclusion: Current literature, though limited, demonstrates moderate to good agreement between injured patients' self- and proxy-reports. Future studies should be mindful of current guidelines on proxy reporting when developing their studies and consider including neglected populations such as cognitively impaired patients to improve clinical validity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
期刊最新文献
Quality of life of women with a screen-detected versus clinically detected breast cancer in the Netherlands: a prospective cohort study Chinese utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument QLU-C10D The effect of social care nurses on health related quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: A non-randomized, multicenter, controlled trial The impact of demographic change on value set validity and obsolescence The performance relationship between the EQ-5D-5L composite “Anxiety/Depression” dimension and anxiety and depression symptoms in a large, general population sample
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1