Suppr超能文献

成人癌症护理中照顾者对患者健康相关生活质量反应的系统评价。

Systematic review of caregiver responses for patient health-related quality of life in adult cancer care.

作者信息

Roydhouse Jessica K, Wilson Ira B

机构信息

Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, 121 S. Main Street, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.

出版信息

Qual Life Res. 2017 Aug;26(8):1925-1954. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1540-6. Epub 2017 Mar 14.

Abstract

PURPOSE

In surveys and in research, proxies such as family members may be used to assess patient health-related quality of life. The aim of this research is to help cancer researchers select a validated health-related quality of life tool if they anticipate using proxy-reported data.

METHODS

Systematic review and methodological appraisal of studies examining the concordance of paired adult cancer patient and proxy responses for multidimensional, validated HRQOL tools. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and perused bibliographies of reviewed papers. We reviewed concordance assessment methods, results, and associated factors for each validated tool.

RESULTS

A total of 32 papers reporting on 29 study populations were included. Most papers were cross-sectional (N = 20) and used disease-specific tools (N = 19), primarily the FACT and EORTC. Patient and proxy mean scores were similar on average for tools and scales, with most mean differences <10 points but large standard deviations. Average ICCs for the FACT and EORTC ranged from 0.35 to 0.62, depending on the scale. Few papers (N = 15) evaluated factors associated with concordance, and results and measurement approaches were inconsistent. The EORTC was the most commonly evaluated disease-specific tool (N = 5 papers). For generic tools, both concordance and associated factor information was most commonly available for the COOP/WONCA (N = 3 papers). The MQOL was the most frequently evaluated end-of-life tool (N = 3 papers).

CONCLUSIONS

Proxy and patient scores are similar on average, but there is large, clinically important residual variability. The evidence base is strongest for the EORTC (disease-specific tools), COOP/WONCA (generic tools), and MQOL (end-of-life-specific tools).

摘要

目的

在调查和研究中,可能会使用家庭成员等代理人来评估患者与健康相关的生活质量。本研究的目的是帮助癌症研究人员在预期使用代理人报告的数据时,选择一种经过验证的与健康相关的生活质量工具。

方法

对研究成对成年癌症患者和代理人对多维、经过验证的健康相关生活质量工具的反应一致性的研究进行系统评价和方法学评估。我们检索了PubMed、CINAHL、PsycINFO,并查阅了综述论文的参考文献。我们回顾了每种经过验证的工具的一致性评估方法、结果和相关因素。

结果

共纳入32篇报告29个研究人群的论文。大多数论文是横断面研究(N = 20),并使用了疾病特异性工具(N = 19),主要是FACT和EORTC。工具和量表的患者和代理人平均得分平均相似,大多数平均差异<10分,但标准差较大。FACT和EORTC的平均组内相关系数(ICC)范围为0.35至0.62,具体取决于量表。很少有论文(N = 15)评估与一致性相关的因素,结果和测量方法不一致。EORTC是评估最频繁的疾病特异性工具(N = 5篇论文)。对于通用工具,COOP/WONCA最常提供一致性和相关因素信息(N = 3篇论文)。MQOL是评估最频繁的临终工具(N = 3篇论文)。

结论

代理人和患者的得分平均相似,但存在较大的、具有临床重要意义的残余变异性。对于EORTC(疾病特异性工具)、COOP/WONCA(通用工具)和MQOL(临终特异性工具),证据基础最为充分。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

6
Symptom Agreement Between Patients and Their Peer Caregivers in Prison.患者及其监狱同伴照顾者之间症状的一致性。
J Correct Health Care. 2022 Oct;28(5):349-357. doi: 10.1089/jchc.21.04.0027. Epub 2022 Sep 30.
9
How is quality of life defined and assessed in published research?发表的研究中如何定义和评估生活质量?
Qual Life Res. 2021 Aug;30(8):2109-2121. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02826-0. Epub 2021 Apr 1.

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验