Summary
This study examined the usefulness of caregiver ratings of cancer patients’ quality of life (QOL), an issue of relevance to both adequate patient care and to the possible use of proxy QOL raters in clinical studies. We compared QOL ratings of 90 cancer patients receiving inpatient chemotherapy with those provided by their significant others (most often the spouse), physicians and nurses. During patients’ scheduled appointment for receiving chemotherapy on a clinical ward, all raters completed independently the Dartmouth COOP Functional Health Assessment charts/WONCA, an instrument developed by a cooperative group of primary care physicians to briefly assess a core set of seven QOL domains (physical fitness, feelings, daily and social activities, overall health, pain and quality of life) by single items with five response options. With few exceptions, mean scores of the proxy raters were equivalent or similar to those of the patients. Most patient–proxy correlations varied between 0.40 and 0.60, indicating a moderate level of agreement at the individual level. Of all comparisons made, 41% were in exact agreement and 43% agreed within one response category, leaving 17% more profound patient–proxy discrepancies. Disagreement was not dependent on the type of proxy rater, or on raters’ background characteristics, but was influenced by the QOL dimension under consideration and the clinical status of the patient. Better patient–proxy agreement was observed for more concrete questions (daily activities, pain) and for patients with either a very good (ECOG 0) or poor (ECOG 3) performance status. The results indicate that both significant others and health care providers can be useful sources of information about cancer patients’ QOL.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Change history
16 November 2011
This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication
References
Aaronson, NK (1991). Methodologic issues in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. Cancer 67: 844–850.
Au, E, Loprinzi, CL, Dhodapkar, M, Nelson, T, Novotny, P, Hammack, J & O’Fallon, J (1994). Regular use of a verbal pain scale improves the understanding of oncology inpatient pain intensity. J Clin Oncol 12: 2751–2755.
Bartko, JJ (1966). The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep 19: 3–11.
Blazeby, JM, Williams, MH, Alderson, D & Farndon, JR (1995). Observer variation in assessment of quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 82: 1200–1203.
Cohen, J (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn, pp. 19–74. Hillsdale, New Yersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Detmar, SB & Aaronson, NK (1998). Quality of life assessment in daily clinical oncology practice: a feasibility study. Eur J Cancer 34: 1181–1186.
Fleiss, JL & Cohen, J (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 33: 613–619.
Ford, S, Fallowfield, L & Lewis, S (1994). Can oncologists detect distress in their out-patients and how satisfied are they with their performance during bad news consultations?. Br J Cancer 70: 767–770.
Grassi, L, Indelli, M, Maltoni, M, Falcini, F, Fabbri, L & Indelli, R (1996). Quality of life of homebound patients with advanced cancer: assessments by patients, family members, and oncologists. J Psychosoc Oncol 14: 31–45.
Grossman, SA, Sheidler, VR, Swedeen, K, Mucenski, J & Piantadosi, S (1991). Correlation of patient and caregiver ratings of cancer pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 6: 53–57.
Hodgkins, M, Albert, D & Daltroy, L (1985). Comparing patients’ and their physicians’ assessments of pain. Pain 23: 273–277.
King, MT (1996). The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 5: 555–567.
Kurtz, ME, Kurtz, JC, Given, CC & Given, B (1996). Concordance of cancer patient and caregiver symptom reports. Cancer Pract 4: 185–190.
Landis, JR & Koch, GG (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174.
Lee, J, Koh, D & Ong, CN (1989). Statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring a quantitative variable. Comput Biol Med 19: 61–70.
Macquart-Moulin, G, Veins, P, Bouscary, M-L, Genre, D, Resbeut, M, Gravis, G, Camerlo, J, Maraninchi, D & Moatti, J-P (1997). Discordance between physicians’ estimations and breast cancer patients’ self-assessments of side-effects of chemotherapy: an issue for quality of care. Br J Cancer 76: 1640–1645.
Magaziner, J (1992). The use of proxy respondents in health studies of the aged. In: The Epidemiologic Study of the Elderly, Wallace RB and Woolson RF (eds), pp. 120–129. Oxford University Press: New York
Magaziner, J (1997). Use of proxies to measure health and functional outcomes in effectiveness research in persons with Alzheimer disease and related disorders. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 11: 168–174.
Marshall, GN, Hays, RD & Nicholas, R (1994). Evaluating agreement between clinical assessment methods. Int J Methods Psychiat Res 4: 249–257.
Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party (1996). Randomised trial of four-drug versus less intensive two-drug chemotherapy in the palliative treatment of patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and poor prognosis. Br J Cancer 73: 406–413
Nelson, EC, Wasson, JH, Kirk, JW, Keller, A, Clark, D, Dietrich, A, Stewart, A & Zubkoff, M (1987). Assessment of function in routine clinical practice: description of the COOP Chart method and preliminary findings. J Chronic Dis 40: 55S–69S.
Nelson, EC, Landgraf, JM, Hays, RD, Kirk, JW, Wasson, JH, Keller, A & Zubkoff, M (1990). The COOP function charts: a system to measure patient function in physicians’ offices. In: Functional Status Measurement in Primary Care, Lipkin M (ed), pp. 97–131. Springer-Verlag: New York
Nelson, LM, Longstreth, WT Jr, Koepsell, TD & Van Belle, G (1990). Proxy respondents in epidemiologic research. Epidemiol Rev 12: 71–86.
Nunnally, JC & Bernstein, IH (1994). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill: New York
Osoba, D (1994). Lessons learned from measuring health-related quality of life in oncology. J Clin Oncol 12: 608–616.
Osoba, D, Rodrigues, G, Myles, J, Zee, B & Pater, J (1998). Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality of life scores. J Clin Oncol 16: 139–144.
Schag, CC, Heinrich, RL & Ganz, PA (1984). Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol 2: 187–193.
Scholten, JHG & Van Weel, C (1992). Functional Status Assessment in Family Practice: the Dartmouth-COOP Functional Health Assessment Charts/WONCA. Meditekst: Lelystad
Schor, EL, Lerner, DJ & Malspeis, S (1995). Physicians’ assessment of functional health status and well-being: the patient’s perspective. Arch Intern Med 155: 309–314.
Sigurdardottir, V, Brandberg, Y & Sullivan, M (1996). Criterion-based validation of the EORTC QLQ-C36 in advanced melanoma: the CIPS questionnaire and proxy raters. Qual Life Res 5: 375–386.
Siu, AL, Ouslander, JG, Osterweil, D, Reuben, DB & Hays, RD (1993). Change in self-reported functioning in older persons entering a residential care facility. J Clin Epidemiol 46: 1093–1101.
Slevin, ML, Plant, H, Lynch, D, Drinkwater, J & Gregory, WM (1988). Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient?. Br J Cancer 57: 109–112.
Sneeuw, KCA, Aaronson, NK, Sprangers, MAG, Detmar, SB, Wever, LDV & Schornagel, JH (1998). Comparison of patient and proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 ratings in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol 51: 617–631.
Sneeuw, KCA, Aaronson, NK, Sprangers, MAG, Detmar, SB, Wever, LDV & Schornagel, JH (1997a). Value of caregiver ratings in evaluating the quality of life of patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 15: 1206–1217.
Sneeuw, KCA, Aaronson, NK, Osoba, D, Muller, MJ, Hsu, M-A, Yung, WKA, Brada, M & Newlands, ES (1997b). The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer. Med Care 35: 490–506.
Sneeuw, KCA, Aaronson, NK, De Haan, RJ & Limburg, M (1997c). Assessing quality of life after stroke: the value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke 28: 1541–1549.
Sorensen, JB, Klee, M, Palshof, T & Hansen, HH (1993). Performance status assessment in cancer patients: an inter-observer variability study. Br J Cancer 67: 773–775.
Sprangers, MAG & Aaronson, NK (1992). The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 45: 743–760.
Stephens, RJ, Hopwood, P, Girling, DJ & Machin, D (1997). Randomized trials with quality of life endpoints: are doctors’ ratings of patients’ physical symptoms interchangeable with patients’ self-ratings?. Qual Life Res 6: 225–236.
Van Weel, C (1993). Functional status in primary care: COOP/WONCA charts. Disabil Rehabil 15: 96–101.
Van Weel, C, König-Zahn, C, Touw-Otten, FWMM, Van Duijn, NP & Meyboom-de Jong, B (1995). Measuring Functional Health Status with the COOP/WONCA Charts: a Manual. Northern Centre of Health Care Research (NCH): Groningen
Wasson, J, Keller, A, Rubenstein, L, Hays, R, Nelson, E & Johnson, D The Dartmouth Primary Care COOP Project (1992). Benefits and obstacles of health status assessment in ambulatory settings. The clinician’s point of view. Med Care 30: MS42–MS49
Zubrod, CG, Schneiderman, M & Frei, E et al (1960). Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene thiophosphoramide. J Chronic Dis 11: 7–33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Sneeuw, K., Aaronson, N., Sprangers, M. et al. Evaluating the quality of life of cancer patients: assessments by patients, significant others, physicians and nurses. Br J Cancer 81, 87–94 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6690655
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6690655
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Measuring the reliability of proxy respondents in behavioural assessments: an open question
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research (2023)
-
Impact of chronic GVHD on QOL assessed by visual analogue scale in pediatric HSCT survivors and differences between raters: a cross-sectional observational study in Japan
International Journal of Hematology (2022)
-
Decreased costs and retained QoL due to the ‘PACE Steps to Success’ intervention in LTCFs: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial
BMC Medicine (2020)
-
Dying in acute hospitals: voices of bereaved relatives
BMC Palliative Care (2019)
-
Provider Perceptions of Quality of Life, Neurocognition, Physical Well-being, and Psychosocial Health in Patients with Primary Immunodeficiency/Immune Dysregulation Conditions
Journal of Clinical Immunology (2019)