Dataset Information

The longitudinal validity of proxy-reported CHU9D.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) currently represents the only preference-based health-related quality-of-life instrument designed exclusively from its inception for application with children. The objective of this study was to examine the construct validity and responsiveness of the proxy-reported (parent) CHU9D in a mental health setting using utility weights derived from an adult and adolescent population, respectively.

Methods

The discriminant validity and convergent validity were examined using the mental health-specific 'The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire' (SDQ) and the generic KIDSCREEN-27. Responsiveness was assessed by examining the floor-ceiling effects, the magnitude of change over time, and the ability to differentiate between improvement and no improvement.

Results

The study included 396 children with mental health problems. CHU9D showed good construct validity, with correlation coefficients ranging between 0.329 and 0.571 for SDQ Impact score and KIDSCREEN-27 Psychological Well-being. CHU9D was able to distinguish between groups of children with different levels of mental health problems (p < 0.001). The absolute magnitudes of the group mean differences were larger using adolescent weights. No evidence of a floor/ceiling effect was found at the baseline. A standardized response mean of 0.634-0.654 was found for the children who experienced clinically significant improvements. CHU9D was able to discriminate between children who experienced positive and no health improvements (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study provides the first evidence on responsiveness for CHU9D in a mental health context. The findings demonstrate that CHU9D is an appropriate HRQOL measure for use in mental health trials. Furthermore, the results show that the preference weights generated from an adolescent population resulted in the larger mean differences between groups.

SUBMITTER: Wolf RT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8178153 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew measures capture the complex symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care.AimTo validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, a measure underpinned by extensive psychometric development, by evaluating its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change.DesignConcurrent, cross-cultural validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - both (1) patient self-report and (2) staff proxy-report versions. We tested construct validity (factor analysis, known-group comparisons, and correlational analysis), reliability (internal consistency, agreement, and test-retest reliability), and responsiveness (through longitudinal evaluation of change).Setting/participantsIn all, 376 adults receiving palliative care, and 161 clinicians, from a range of settings in the United Kingdom and Germany.ResultsWe confirm a three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication/Practical Issues). Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows strong ability to distinguish between clinically relevant groups; total Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale scores were higher - reflecting more problems - in those patients with 'unstable' or 'deteriorating' versus 'stable' Phase of Illness (F = 15.1, p < 0.001). Good convergent and discriminant validity to hypothesised items and subscales of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General is demonstrated. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows good internal consistency (α = 0.77) and acceptable to good test-retest reliability (60% of items kw > 0.60). Longitudinal validity in form of responsiveness to change is good.ConclusionThe Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a valid and reliable outcome measure, both in patient self-report and staff proxy-report versions. It can assess and monitor symptoms and concerns in advanced illness, determine the impact of healthcare interventions, and demonstrate quality of care. This represents a major step forward internationally for palliative care outcome measurement.

Project description:ImportanceThe variability in individual symptom and adverse event reporting between pediatric patient-reports and proxy-reports is widely reported. However, the question of whether symptom profiles based on reports from children with cancer and their caregivers are similar or disparate have not yet been studied.ObjectiveTo compare proxy symptom reports with patient self-reports to assess alignment.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter cohort study was conducted from October 2016 to December 2018 from data collected at 9 pediatric cancer centers. Participants were a convenience sample of family caregivers or proxies of children aged 7 to 18 years who had received disease-directed oncology treatment in the form of chemotherapy for at least 1 month. Data were analyzed identifying clusters of individuals (ie, latent profiles) based on various responses (ie, indicators) in August 2021.ExposuresThe children of proxy participants received upfront chemotherapy. Children and proxies completed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) surveys at 2 time points: within 72 hours preceding treatment initiation and following the course of chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe latent profile analysis methods were applied to caregiver-proxy reports of PROMIS Pediatric symptom and function measures (anxiety, depressive symptoms, pain interference, fatigue, psychological stress, and physical function-mobility). The instrument categorized respondents as high symptom suffering, medium symptom suffering, and low symptom suffering (hereafter, high, medium, and low symptom groups, respectively).ResultsOf 580 approached proxies, 431 (368 [85.00%] were female) identified as legal guardians of children aged 7 to 18 years with a first cancer diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 13.03 [3.40] years; 235 [54.65%] were male). Proxy reports of children's experiences based on the 5 proxy PROMIS measures comprised 3 distinct symptom profiles. The most common proxy assessments of children's experiences were the moderate symptom groups (45.7% [197 of 431]) and the low symptom groups profiles (40.1% [173 of 431]). A high symptom groups profile emerged which represented 14.2% (61 of 431) of proxy assessments. The number of profiles and observed distribution of profile membership was similar between child and proxy reports. Proxy reports of individual symptoms generally recorded higher scores than child reports; however, no significant difference was observed between proxies and child profile model results for the PROMIS measures.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this cohort study suggest that, at the level of symptom severity profile, proxy caregiver reports may approximate the children's reports and may serve as a guide to care when the child is not able to self-report.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The use of self-report measurements in clinical settings is increasing. However, in patients with limitations that interfere with reliable self-assessment such as cognitive impairment or mood disturbances, as may be the case in multiple sclerosis (MS), data collection might be problematic. In these situations, information obtained from proxy respondents (e.g. partners) may replace self-ratings. The aim of this study was to examine the value of proxy ratings at separate points in time and to assess patient-proxy agreement on possible changes in disease impact of MS. METHODS: Fifty-six MS patients and their partners completed the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) at baseline and follow-up, two years later. Patient-proxy agreement was assessed at both time points by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), exact and global agreement and the mean directional differences between groups. Agreement of change over time was assessed by calculating ICCs between change scores. In parallel, global ratings of both patients and proxy respondents of the extent to which the patient had improved or deteriorated over the past two years were collected to validate possible changes on the MSIS-29. RESULTS: At both time points, agreement on the physical scale was higher than agreement on the psychological scale (ICCs at baseline were 0.81 for the physical scale and 0.72 for the psychological scale; at follow-up, the ICC values were 0.86 and 0.65 respectively). At follow-up, statistically significant mean differences between patients and proxies were noted for the physical scale (-4.8 +/- 12.7, p = 0.006) and the psychological scale (-8.9 +/- 18.8, p = 0.001). Agreement between change scores on the MSIS-29 was fair (ICC < 0.60). Our analyses suggest that the validity of measuring changes over time might be better for proxy respondents compared to patients. CONCLUSION: Proxy respondents could act as a reliable source of information in cross-sectional studies. Moreover, results suggested that agreement on change over time might be better for proxy respondents compared to patients. Although this remarkable finding should be interpreted cautiously because of several limitations of the study, it does plead for further investigation of this important topic.