解开老年护理居民自我报告与代理报告难题:一项混合方法研究的结果。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Julie Ratcliffe, Kiri Lay, Matthew Crocker, Lidia Engel, Rachel Milte, Claire Hutchinson, Jyoti Khadka, David G T Whitehurst, Brendan Mulhern, Rosalie Viney, Richard Norman
{"title":"解开老年护理居民自我报告与代理报告难题:一项混合方法研究的结果。","authors":"Julie Ratcliffe, Kiri Lay, Matthew Crocker, Lidia Engel, Rachel Milte, Claire Hutchinson, Jyoti Khadka, David G T Whitehurst, Brendan Mulhern, Rosalie Viney, Richard Norman","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00655-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>No guidance currently exists as to the cognition threshold beyond which self-reported quality of life for older people with cognitive impairment and dementia is unreliable.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Older aged care residents (≥ 65 years) were randomly assigned to complete the EQ-5D-5L in computer-based (eye movements were tracked) or hard copy (participants were encouraged to 'think aloud') format. Cognition was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Think aloud and eye tracking data were analysed by two raters, blinded to MMSE scores. At the participant level, predefined criteria were used to assign traffic light grades (green, amber, red). These grades indicate the extent to which extracted data elements provided evidence of self-report reliability. The MMSE-defined cognition threshold was determined following review of the distributions of assigned traffic light grades.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-one residents participated and provided complete data (38 eye tracking, 43 think aloud). In the think aloud cohort, all participants with an MMSE score ≤ 23 (n = 10) received an amber or red grade, while 64% of participants with an MMSE score ≥ 24 (21 of 33) received green grades. In the eye tracking cohort, 68% of participants with an MMSE score ≥ 24 (15 of 22) received green grades. Of the 16 eye tracking participants with an MMSE score ≤ 23, 14 (88%) received an amber or red grade.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most older residents with an MMSE score ≥ 24 have sufficient cognitive capacity to self-complete the EQ-5D-5L. More research is needed to better understand self-completion reliability for other quality-of-life instruments in cognitively impaired populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unravelling the Self-Report Versus Proxy-Report Conundrum for Older Aged Care Residents: Findings from a Mixed-Methods Study.\",\"authors\":\"Julie Ratcliffe, Kiri Lay, Matthew Crocker, Lidia Engel, Rachel Milte, Claire Hutchinson, Jyoti Khadka, David G T Whitehurst, Brendan Mulhern, Rosalie Viney, Richard Norman\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-023-00655-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>No guidance currently exists as to the cognition threshold beyond which self-reported quality of life for older people with cognitive impairment and dementia is unreliable.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Older aged care residents (≥ 65 years) were randomly assigned to complete the EQ-5D-5L in computer-based (eye movements were tracked) or hard copy (participants were encouraged to 'think aloud') format. Cognition was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Think aloud and eye tracking data were analysed by two raters, blinded to MMSE scores. At the participant level, predefined criteria were used to assign traffic light grades (green, amber, red). These grades indicate the extent to which extracted data elements provided evidence of self-report reliability. The MMSE-defined cognition threshold was determined following review of the distributions of assigned traffic light grades.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-one residents participated and provided complete data (38 eye tracking, 43 think aloud). In the think aloud cohort, all participants with an MMSE score ≤ 23 (n = 10) received an amber or red grade, while 64% of participants with an MMSE score ≥ 24 (21 of 33) received green grades. In the eye tracking cohort, 68% of participants with an MMSE score ≥ 24 (15 of 22) received green grades. Of the 16 eye tracking participants with an MMSE score ≤ 23, 14 (88%) received an amber or red grade.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most older residents with an MMSE score ≥ 24 have sufficient cognitive capacity to self-complete the EQ-5D-5L. More research is needed to better understand self-completion reliability for other quality-of-life instruments in cognitively impaired populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00655-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00655-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:目前没有关于认知阈值的指导,超过该阈值,老年认知障碍和痴呆患者自我报告的生活质量就不可靠。方法:老年护理居民(≥65岁)被随机分配以电脑(跟踪眼球运动)或硬拷贝(鼓励参与者“大声思考”)的形式完成EQ-5D-5L。认知评估采用简易精神状态检查(MMSE)。两名不知道MMSE分数的评分者分析了“大声思考”和眼动追踪数据。在参与者层面,使用预定义的标准来分配交通灯等级(绿色,琥珀色,红色)。这些等级表明所提取的数据要素在多大程度上提供了自我报告可靠性的证据。mmse定义的认知阈值是在审查指定交通灯等级的分布后确定的。结果:81位住院医师参与并提供完整数据(38位眼动追踪,43位出声思考)。在大声思考队列中,所有MMSE评分≤23 (n = 10)的参与者都获得了琥珀色或红色等级,而MMSE评分≥24的参与者中有64%(33人中有21人)获得了绿色等级。在眼动追踪队列中,68%的MMSE评分≥24的参与者(22人中有15人)获得绿色评分。在MMSE评分≤23的16名眼动追踪参与者中,14名(88%)获得琥珀色或红色等级。结论:大多数MMSE评分≥24的老年居民有足够的认知能力来自我完成EQ-5D-5L。需要更多的研究来更好地了解认知障碍人群中其他生活质量工具的自我完成可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unravelling the Self-Report Versus Proxy-Report Conundrum for Older Aged Care Residents: Findings from a Mixed-Methods Study.

Objectives: No guidance currently exists as to the cognition threshold beyond which self-reported quality of life for older people with cognitive impairment and dementia is unreliable.

Methods: Older aged care residents (≥ 65 years) were randomly assigned to complete the EQ-5D-5L in computer-based (eye movements were tracked) or hard copy (participants were encouraged to 'think aloud') format. Cognition was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Think aloud and eye tracking data were analysed by two raters, blinded to MMSE scores. At the participant level, predefined criteria were used to assign traffic light grades (green, amber, red). These grades indicate the extent to which extracted data elements provided evidence of self-report reliability. The MMSE-defined cognition threshold was determined following review of the distributions of assigned traffic light grades.

Results: Eighty-one residents participated and provided complete data (38 eye tracking, 43 think aloud). In the think aloud cohort, all participants with an MMSE score ≤ 23 (n = 10) received an amber or red grade, while 64% of participants with an MMSE score ≥ 24 (21 of 33) received green grades. In the eye tracking cohort, 68% of participants with an MMSE score ≥ 24 (15 of 22) received green grades. Of the 16 eye tracking participants with an MMSE score ≤ 23, 14 (88%) received an amber or red grade.

Conclusions: Most older residents with an MMSE score ≥ 24 have sufficient cognitive capacity to self-complete the EQ-5D-5L. More research is needed to better understand self-completion reliability for other quality-of-life instruments in cognitively impaired populations.

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
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
×
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