IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v17y2024i1d10.1007_s40271-023-00655-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unravelling the Self-Report Versus Proxy-Report Conundrum for Older Aged Care Residents: Findings from a Mixed-Methods Study

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Ratcliffe

    (Flinders University)

  • Kiri Lay

    (Flinders University)

  • Matthew Crocker

    (Flinders University)

  • Lidia Engel

    (Monash University)

  • Rachel Milte

    (Flinders University)

  • Claire Hutchinson

    (Flinders University)

  • Jyoti Khadka

    (Flinders University)

  • David G. T. Whitehurst

    (Simon Fraser University)

  • Brendan Mulhern

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Richard Norman

    (Curtin University)

Abstract

Objectives No guidance currently exists as to the cognition threshold beyond which self-reported quality of life for older people with cognitive impairment and dementia is unreliable. Methods Older aged care residents (≥ 65 years) were randomly assigned to complete the EQ-5D-5L in computer-based (eye movements were tracked) or hard copy (participants were encouraged to ‘think aloud’) format. Cognition was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Think aloud and eye tracking data were analysed by two raters, blinded to MMSE scores. At the participant level, predefined criteria were used to assign traffic light grades (green, amber, red). These grades indicate the extent to which extracted data elements provided evidence of self-report reliability. The MMSE-defined cognition threshold was determined following review of the distributions of assigned traffic light grades. Results Eighty-one residents participated and provided complete data (38 eye tracking, 43 think aloud). In the think aloud cohort, all participants with an MMSE score ≤ 23 (n = 10) received an amber or red grade, while 64% of participants with an MMSE score ≥ 24 (21 of 33) received green grades. In the eye tracking cohort, 68% of participants with an MMSE score ≥ 24 (15 of 22) received green grades. Of the 16 eye tracking participants with an MMSE score ≤ 23, 14 (88%) received an amber or red grade. Conclusions Most older residents with an MMSE score ≥ 24 have sufficient cognitive capacity to self-complete the EQ-5D-5L. More research is needed to better understand self-completion reliability for other quality-of-life instruments in cognitively impaired populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie Ratcliffe & Kiri Lay & Matthew Crocker & Lidia Engel & Rachel Milte & Claire Hutchinson & Jyoti Khadka & David G. T. Whitehurst & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman, 2024. "Unravelling the Self-Report Versus Proxy-Report Conundrum for Older Aged Care Residents: Findings from a Mixed-Methods Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(1), pages 53-64, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00655-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00655-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-023-00655-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-023-00655-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00655-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.