Jochem H Raats, Noa H M Ponds, D T Brameier, P A Bain, H J Schuijt, D van der Velde, M J Weaver
{"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":" ","pages":"89-99"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","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":"2024/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
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.