IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v38y1994i4p553-557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are bereaved family members a valid proxy for a patient's assessment of dying?

Author

Listed:
  • Higginson, Irene
  • Priest, Patricia
  • McCarthy, Mark

Abstract

Objective: To compare assessments made retrospectively by bereaved family members (or the nearest carer to the patient) with assessments made before death by palliative staff and, where available, by patients themselves or the family member. Methods: Setting--two palliative care support teams. Assessments--were recorded prospectively by team staff, patients and their family members for consecutive patients referred, and then were recorde retrospectively by family members during interview seven months after bereavement. Measures--seven items each rated 0 (best) to 4 (worst) using standard definitions. The rater was asked to average the severity over one week. Analysis--ratings were tested for percentage agreement, for Cohen's Kappa (which controls for chance agreement) and for Spearman correlations. Results: Staff ratings and family members' retrospective ratings, which described the last week of life, were available for 35 patients. Six patients and seven family members had also been interviewed shortly before the patient's death. The main problems identified by all raters were similar: family anxiety, symptom control, patient anxiety and pain control. For three items, practical aid, wasted time and communication, agreement was good--all cases except one were equal or within one score. However, problems were rarely identified for these items. For the other four items: pain control, other symptom control, family anxiety and patient anxiety, there was little agreement, Cohen's Kappa ranged 0.05-0.22. Agreement for one item (patient anxiety) was significantly improved if a patient had died at home. Comparison of ratings made by the family members before the death and seven months after bereavement suggests that family members alter their assessments during bereavement. Conclusion: Retrospective assessments by bereaved family members may be valid for some items related to service provision, but not as the sole assessment of a patient's pain, symptoms or anxiety. We suggest that studies which rely on these retrospective ratings should assess the validity of their responses and record more information about the mood and grief of the family member.

Suggested Citation

  • Higginson, Irene & Priest, Patricia & McCarthy, Mark, 1994. "Are bereaved family members a valid proxy for a patient's assessment of dying?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 553-557, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:38:y:1994:i:4:p:553-557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)90251-8
    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.

    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:38:y:1994:i:4:p:553-557. 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.