IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v43y1996i8p1229-1236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How reliable are relatives' retrospective reports of terminal illness? Patients' and relatives' accounts compared

Author

Listed:
  • Hinton, John

Abstract

To assess the accuracy of relatives' recollections of patients' terminal illness 71 out of 77 caring relatives were re-interviewed about 4 months after they and the patients had given regular interviews throughout care. Current and retrospective ratings of problems and feelings have been compared for agreement, using the [kappa] index. Several volunteered symptoms showed poor agreement, notably pain, anorexia and depression ([kappa] = 0.03-0.21), but vomiting, dyspnoea and immobility ratings agreed moderately well ([kappa] = 0.43-0.68). Current ratings from patients' and relatives' were always in better agreement with each other than with the relatives' retrospective ratings. Bias sometimes altered apparent prevalence; pain was described as more severe in retrospect, but weakness, malaise, depression and relatives' stress were under-rated later. Ratings of "discomfort only" became less common for all symptoms retrospectively. The regular current assessments of patients' and relatives' emotional state also agreed only slightly with relatives' follow-up accounts of depression but somewhat better for anxiety. Patients' stated knowledge of diagnosis, awareness and acceptance of dying matched the relatives' retrospective assessments moderately well ([kappa] = 0.70, 0.50 and 0.41). This study and other available evidence indicate that relatives' retrospective reports of terminal illness, measured against current ratings, are moderately reliable for some items but can vary or be potentially misleading over other aspects, including pain. This could affect evaluations of care.

Suggested Citation

  • Hinton, John, 1996. "How reliable are relatives' retrospective reports of terminal illness? Patients' and relatives' accounts compared," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1229-1236, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:43:y:1996:i:8:p:1229-1236
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(95)00437-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Philip C Higgins & Holly G Prigerson, 2013. "Caregiver Evaluation of the Quality of End-Of-Life Care (CEQUEL) Scale: The Caregiver's Perception of Patient Care Near Death," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-10, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:43:y:1996:i:8:p:1229-1236. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.