↓ Skip to main content

Proxy and patient reports of health-related quality of life in a national cancer survey

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Proxy and patient reports of health-related quality of life in a national cancer survey
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0823-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica K. Roydhouse, Roee Gutman, Nancy L. Keating, Vincent Mor, Ira B. Wilson

Abstract

Proxy respondents are frequently used in surveys, including those assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL). In cancer, most research involving proxies has been undertaken with paired proxy-patient populations, where proxy responses are compared to patient responses for the same individual. In these populations, proxy-patient differences are small and suggest proxy underestimation of patient HRQOL. In practice, however, proxy responses will only be used when patient responses are not available. The difference between proxy and patient reports of patient HRQOL where patients are not able to report for themselves in cancer is not known. The objective of this study was to evaluate the difference between patient and proxy reports of patient HRQOL in a large national cancer survey, and determine if this difference could be mitigated by adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic information about patients. Data were from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study. Patients or their proxies were recruited within 3-6 months of diagnosis with lung or colorectal cancer. HRQOL was measured using the SF-12 mental and physical composite scales. Differences of ½ SD (=5 points) were considered clinically significant. The primary independent variable was proxy status. Linear regression models were used to adjust for patient sociodemographic and clinical covariates, including cancer stage, patient age and education, and patient co-morbidities. Of 6471 respondents, 1011 (16%) were proxies. Before adjustment, average proxy-reported scores were lower for both physical (-6.7 points, 95% CI -7.4 to -5.9) and mental (-6 points, 95% CI -6.7 to -5.2) health. Proxy-reported scores remained lower after adjustment (physical: -5.8 points, -6.6 to -5; mental: -5.8 points, -6.6 to 5). Proxy-patient score differences remained clinically and statistically significant, even after adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical variables. Proxy-reported outcome scores for both physical and mental health were clinically and significantly lower than patient-reported scores for these outcomes. The size of the proxy-patient score differences was not affected by the health domain, and adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical variables had minimal impact.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 25%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Psychology 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 18 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2019.
All research outputs
#6,354,733
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#738
of 2,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,811
of 441,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#33
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.