Purpose Measures of quality of life (QoL) are increasingly used to monitor psychological and social well being of clients with chronic illnesses. They are particularly useful in cases where an illness results in multiple disabilities. Where clients have difficulty completing the measure, others who know them may act as proxies. It is important, therefore to assess the accuracy of proxy scores. This study compared the QoL scores given by people with multiple sclerosis (PWMS) with proxy scores given by close relatives.
Method The Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis (FAMS) quality of life instrument (Cella et al.) [1] was used. Forty PWMS completed the measure in face-to-face interviews with a speech and language therapist. Close relatives were asked to independently complete the measure on behalf of these clients.
Results The overall correlation between client and proxy scores was 0.62, which Sneeuw et al. [2] suggest indicates good agreement. As in previous studies with other groups of clients, proxies underestimated the scores of PWMS. Despite these findings, the results showed substantial disagreements for individual clients and their proxies and a relationship was found which suggests that proxies underestimate the scores of clients with better QoL and overestimate those with poorer QoL scores.
Conclusion The level of agreement found between client and proxy scores and the tendency for proxies to underestimate clients' scores are consistent with research with other client groups. The overestimation by proxies of clients who rate their QoL as poor needs further investigation. If confirmed it may complicate the estimation of client scores from those of proxies. We conclude that while proxy scores may be useful as a means of estimating the QoL of groups of clients in research studies they should be used cautiously in the prediction of the QoL of individual clients at the clinical level. Multiple Sclerosis 2007; 13: 1190—1194. http://msj.sagepub.com
Cella DF, Dineen K., Arnason B., Reder A., Webster KA, Karabatsos G., et al. Validation of the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology1996 ; 47: 129—39.
2.
Sneeuw Kca, Sprangers Mag, Aaronson NKThe role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. Journal ofClinical Epidemiology2002; 55: 1130—43.
3.
Foong J., Rozewicz L., Chong WK, Thompson AJ, Miller DH, Ron M.A comparison of neuropsychological deficits in primary and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Journal ofNeurology2000 ; 247: 97—101.
4.
Minden S., Moes E., Orav J, Kaplan E, Reich P. Memory Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis. Journal of Clinical and ExperimentalNeuropyschology1990; 12: 566—86.
5.
Rao SM, Leo GJ, Bernardin L., Unverzagt F.Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Neurology1991; 41: 685—91.
6.
Nicholl C., Lincoln N., Francis V., Stephan T.Assessment of emotional problems in people with multiple sclerosis. Clinical Rehabilitation2001a; 15: 657—68.
7.
Feinstein A.Multiple sclerosis, depression, and suicide . British Medical Journal1997; 315: 691—92.
8.
Di Fabio R., Choi T., Soderberg J., Hansen C.Health-related quality of life for patients with progressive multiple sclerosis: influence of rehabilitation. Physical Therapy1997; 77: 1704—16.
9.
Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Sprangers MA, Detmar SB, Wever LD, Schornagel JHComparison of patient and proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 ratings in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. Journal ofClinical Epidemiology1998; 51: 617—31.
10.
Von Essen L.Proxy ratings of patient quality of life: factors related to patient-proxy agreement. Acta Oncologica2004; 43: 229—34.
11.
Addington-Hall J., Kalra L.Who should measure quality of life?British Medical Journal2001; 322: 1417—20.
12.
Sprangers Mag , Aaronson NKThe role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. Journal ofClinical Epidemiology1992; 45: 743—60.
13.
Andresen EM , Vahle VJ, Lollar D.Proxy reliability: health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures for people with disability. Quality of Life Research2001; 10: 609—19.
14.
Hickey EM, Bourgeois MSHealth-related quality of life in nursing home residents with dementia: Stability and relationships among measures. Aphasiology2000; 14: 669—79.
15.
Solari A., Ghezzi A., Mendozzi L., Filippini G., Cifani S., Barbieri E. et al. Relation of cognitive impairment and depression to quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients. ItalianJournal of Neurological Science1998; 19: 392—98.
16.
Solari A., Radice D.Health status of people with multiple sclerosis: a community mail survey. Neurological Science2001; 22: 307—15.
17.
Cohen J.Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Academic Press, 1988.
18.
Tang ST, McCorkie R.Use of family proxies in quality of life research for cancer patients at the end of life: a literature review. Cancer Investigation2002; 20: 1086—104.
