Proxy reporting in health: a scoping review of instructions, perspectives, and reporting experiences.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Henok Dagne, Kathleen Doherty, Julie Campbell, Alice Saul, Jessica Roydhouse
{"title":"Proxy reporting in health: a scoping review of instructions, perspectives, and reporting experiences.","authors":"Henok Dagne, Kathleen Doherty, Julie Campbell, Alice Saul, Jessica Roydhouse","doi":"10.1007/s11136-025-03929-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Informal carers ('proxies'), who typically provide unpaid care and have a personal relationship with the care recipient, are often asked to report on the health of individuals who are unable to self-report. However, this task is not without its challenges. Little is known about how proxies approach this task, which poses challenges for optimal questionnaire design.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The review had three aims: (1) to identify the questionnaire perspective instructions provided to proxies i.e., whether the proxy was asked to answer from their own (proxy-proxy) or the person's (proxy-patient) perspective when reporting, (2) identify which perspective instruction the proxies followed, if reported, and (3) what information, if any, was captured about the proxy's experience of reporting about someone else. In the proxy-proxy perspective, proxies report from their own perspective, but in the proxy-patient perspective they report from the perspective of the person living with the condition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted across Medline, Psych Info, CINAHL, and Embase. Only published articles meeting the criteria of informal carers providing proxy reports for adults were considered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 5816 publications, 60 articles were eligible for full-text review, and 12 were included for data extraction. Instructions varied, with proxies asked to adopt both proxy-proxy and proxy-patient perspectives in eight studies and only the proxy-patient in four of them. Whether proxies followed the provided instructions consistently is not known. Proxies' reporting experiences were not reported in the included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Proxies are provided with different perspective instructions, but proxy adherence to instructions is not known. Additionally, proxy reporting experience was not described. Providing clear instructions, evaulating proxy adherence to instructions and collecting proxies' reporting experiences can inform optimal questionnaire design to help proxies better report about the health of others.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Registered at open science framework: https://osf.io/j4t87 .</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","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/s11136-025-03929-8","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

Abstract

Background: Informal carers ('proxies'), who typically provide unpaid care and have a personal relationship with the care recipient, are often asked to report on the health of individuals who are unable to self-report. However, this task is not without its challenges. Little is known about how proxies approach this task, which poses challenges for optimal questionnaire design.

Purpose: The review had three aims: (1) to identify the questionnaire perspective instructions provided to proxies i.e., whether the proxy was asked to answer from their own (proxy-proxy) or the person's (proxy-patient) perspective when reporting, (2) identify which perspective instruction the proxies followed, if reported, and (3) what information, if any, was captured about the proxy's experience of reporting about someone else. In the proxy-proxy perspective, proxies report from their own perspective, but in the proxy-patient perspective they report from the perspective of the person living with the condition.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted across Medline, Psych Info, CINAHL, and Embase. Only published articles meeting the criteria of informal carers providing proxy reports for adults were considered.

Results: Of 5816 publications, 60 articles were eligible for full-text review, and 12 were included for data extraction. Instructions varied, with proxies asked to adopt both proxy-proxy and proxy-patient perspectives in eight studies and only the proxy-patient in four of them. Whether proxies followed the provided instructions consistently is not known. Proxies' reporting experiences were not reported in the included studies.

Conclusion: Proxies are provided with different perspective instructions, but proxy adherence to instructions is not known. Additionally, proxy reporting experience was not described. Providing clear instructions, evaulating proxy adherence to instructions and collecting proxies' reporting experiences can inform optimal questionnaire design to help proxies better report about the health of others.

Review registration: Registered at open science framework: https://osf.io/j4t87 .

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信