Discrepancies between proxy estimates and patient reported, health related, quality of life: minding the gap between patient and clinician perceptions in heart failure

What patient-reported outcome measures may be suitable for research involving older adults with frailty? A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The need to develop and evaluate frailty-related interventions is increasingly important, and inclusion of patient-reported outcomes is vital. Patient-reported outcomes can be defined as measures of health, quality of life or functional status reported directly by patients with no clinician interpretation. Numerous validated questionnaires can thus be considered patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This review aimed to identify existing PROMs currently used in quantitative research that may be suitable for older people with frailty.

METHOD

PubMed and Cochrane were searched up to 24/11/22. Inclusion criteria were quantitative studies, use of a PROM, and either measurement of frailty or inclusion of older adult participants. Criteria were created to distinguish PROMs from questionnaire-based clinical assessments. 197 papers were screened. PROMs were categorized according to the domain assessed, as derived from a published consensus 'Standard Set of Health Outcome Measures for Older People'.

RESULTS

88 studies were included. 112 unique PROMs were used 289 times, most frequently the SF-36 (n = 21), EQ-5D (n = 21) and Barthel Index (n = 14). The most frequently assessed outcome domains included Mood and Emotional Health and Activities of Daily Living, with fewer assessments of Participation in Decision-Making and Carer Burden.

CONCLUSIONS

PROM usage in frailty research is highly heterogeneous. Frequently used PROMs omit important outcomes identified by older adults. Further research should evaluate the importance of specific outcomes and identify PROMs relevant to people at different stages of frailty. Consistent and appropriate PROM use in frailty research would facilitate more effective comparisons and meaningful evaluation of frailty interventions.

Agreement between older adult patient and caregiver proxy symptom reports

BACKGROUND

Proxy report is essential for patients unable to complete patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures themselves and potentially beneficial when the caregiver perspective can complement patient report. In this study, we examine agreement between self-report by older adults and proxy report by their caregivers when completing PROs for pain, anxiety, depression, and other symptoms/impairments.

METHODS

Four PROs were administered by telephone to older adults and their caregivers followed by re-administration within 24 h in a random subgroup. The PROs included the PHQ-9 depression, GAD-7 anxiety, PEG pain, and SymTrak multi-dimensional symptom and functional status scales.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 576 older adult and caregiver participants (188 patient-caregiver dyads, 200 patients without identified caregiver). The four measures had good internal (Cronbach's alpha, 0.76 to 0.92) and test-retest (ICC, 0.63 to 0.92) reliability whether completed by patients or caregivers. Total score and item-level means were relatively similar for both patient and caregiver reports. Agreement for total score as measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was better for SymTrak-23 (0.48) and pain (0.58) than for anxiety (0.28) and depression (0.25). Multinomial modeling showed higher (worse) patient-reported scale scores were associated with caregiver underreporting, whereas higher caregiver task difficulty was associated with overreporting.

CONCLUSION

When averaged over individuals at the group level, proxy reports of PRO scores by caregivers tend to approximate patient reports. For individual patients, proxy report should be interpreted more cautiously for psychological symptoms as well as when patient-reported symptoms are more severe, or caregiver task difficulty is high.

Power(ful) myths: misconceptions regarding sample size in quality of life research

PURPOSE

Carefully selecting the sample size for a research study is one of the most fundamental ways to utilize resources in an ethical manner, maximize impact and replicability, and minimize research waste when investigating questions relevant to health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Despite an increased focus on sample size in the methodological literature, the topic has received limited attention in the HRQOL field, and there are still misconceptions that can weaken even well-intentioned sample size planning. This article aims to highlight common misconceptions, provide accessible and non-technical corrections to these misconceptions, and show how HRQOL researchers can benefit from a more nuanced understanding of sample size planning.

METHOD

Misconceptions were identified broadly through examples within the health, psychology, and HRQOL literatures. In examining these misconceptions, study-level (e.g., missing data, multilevel designs, multiple reported outcomes) and field-level (e.g., publication bias, replicability) issues relevant to HRQOL research were considered.

RESULTS

Misconceptions include: (a) researchers should use rules of thumb or the largest sample size possible, (b) sample size planning should always focus on power, (c) planned power = actual power, (d) there is only one level of power per study, and (e) power is only relevant for the individual researcher. Throughout the article, major themes linked to these misconceptions are mapped onto recent HRQOL studies to make the connections more tangible.

CONCLUSION

By clarifying several challenges and misconceptions regarding sample size planning and statistical power, HRQOL researchers will have the tools needed to augment the research literature in effective and meaningful ways.