Quality of Life Ratings and Proxy Bias in Primary Progressive Aphasia: Two Sides to the Story?

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Leanne Ruggero, Karen Croot, Lyndsey Nickels
{"title":"Quality of Life Ratings and Proxy Bias in Primary Progressive Aphasia: Two Sides to the Story?","authors":"Leanne Ruggero, Karen Croot, Lyndsey Nickels","doi":"10.1177/15333175231177668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A valid measure of quality of life is important for clinical goal setting and for evaluating interventions. In the amnestic dementias, proxy-raters (e.g. friends, families, clinicians) typically rate quality of life <i>lower</i> than the self-ratings given by the person with dementia - a proxy bias. This study investigated whether the same proxy bias occurs in Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA), a language-led dementia.Quality of life was measured in 18 individuals with PPA using self-ratings, and proxy-ratings by their main communication partner, using the Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease Scale.There was no strong evidence for proxy bias at a group level, with no consistent pattern across dyads, where proxy- and self-ratings did not show good levels of agreement. We suggest that self-ratings and proxy-ratings of quality of life in PPA are not interchangeable. Higher-powered investigation of the patterns observed here is warranted in future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50816,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias","volume":"38 ","pages":"15333175231177668"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10623902/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15333175231177668","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A valid measure of quality of life is important for clinical goal setting and for evaluating interventions. In the amnestic dementias, proxy-raters (e.g. friends, families, clinicians) typically rate quality of life lower than the self-ratings given by the person with dementia - a proxy bias. This study investigated whether the same proxy bias occurs in Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA), a language-led dementia.Quality of life was measured in 18 individuals with PPA using self-ratings, and proxy-ratings by their main communication partner, using the Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease Scale.There was no strong evidence for proxy bias at a group level, with no consistent pattern across dyads, where proxy- and self-ratings did not show good levels of agreement. We suggest that self-ratings and proxy-ratings of quality of life in PPA are not interchangeable. Higher-powered investigation of the patterns observed here is warranted in future studies.

原发性进行性失语症的生活质量评分和代理偏差:故事的两面性?
有效的生活质量测量对于临床目标设定和干预措施评估很重要。在遗忘性痴呆症中,代理评分者(如朋友、家人、临床医生)通常对生活质量的评分低于痴呆症患者的自我评分,这是一种代理偏差。本研究调查了原发性进行性失语症(PPA)(一种语言导致的痴呆)是否也存在同样的代理偏倚。18名PPA患者的生活质量通过自我评分进行了测量,他们的主要沟通伙伴使用阿尔茨海默病生活质量量表进行了代理评分。没有强有力的证据表明在群体层面存在代理偏见,两人组之间也没有一致的模式,代理和自我评分没有显示出良好的一致性。我们建议PPA中生活质量的自我评级和代理评级不能互换。在未来的研究中,有必要对这里观察到的模式进行更有力的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias
American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Alzheimer''s Disease and other Dementias® (AJADD) is for professionals on the frontlines of Alzheimer''s care, dementia, and clinical depression--especially physicians, nurses, psychiatrists, administrators, and other healthcare specialists who manage patients with dementias and their families. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
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