• Brittany R Lapin, Nicolas R Thompson, Andrew Schuster, and Irene L Katzan.
• Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Center for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Cerebrovascular Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: LapinB@ccf.org.
• Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021 Mar 1; 102 (3): 440-447.

ObjectivesTo quantify the extent and variability of bias introduced when caregivers, or proxies, complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) on behalf of stroke patients.DesignCross-sectional survey study conducted between July 2018 and November 2019.SettingAmbulatory clinic of a cerebrovascular center or rehabilitation unit.ParticipantsA consecutive sample of stroke patients (N=200) and their proxies who were able and willing to complete PROMs. Proxies completed PROMs as they believed the patient would answer.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasuresPROMs included Neuro-QoL cognitive function, PROMIS physical function, social role satisfaction, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, sleep disturbance, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 translated to PROMIS Depression, and PROMIS Global Health.ResultsThe study included 200 stroke patients (age, 62.2±13.3; 41.5% women) and their proxies (age 56.5±13.9; 70% women, 72% spouses). Proxies reported worse functioning and more symptoms across all PROM domains compared with patients (average difference, 0.3-3.0 T score points). Reliability between dyad responses was moderate across all domains (intraclass correlation coefficients (2,1), 0.49-0.76) and effect sizes were small (d=0.04-0.35). Cognitive function, anxiety, and depression had the lowest agreement, whereas physical function, pain, and sleep had the highest agreement based on the Bland-Altman method. At the individual level, a large proportion of dyads had meaningfully different scores across domains (range, 40%-57%; dyads differed >5 T score points). Few predictors of disagreement were identified through multinomial regression models.ConclusionsAt the aggregate level, small differences were detected between stroke patient-proxy pairs, with lower agreement on more subjective domains. At the individual level, a large proportion of dyads reported meaningfully different scores on all domains, affecting the interpretability of proxy responses on PROMs in a clinical setting.Copyright © 2020 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

17 keywords...

hide…