Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:17:07.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do palliative patients and carers agree about patients' psychological functioning?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2010

Julie Ann Robinson  and
Gregory Brian Crawford
Julie Ann Robinson*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia
Gregory Brian Crawford
Affiliation:
Discipline of Medicine, University of Adelaide, South Australia Mary Potter Hospice, North Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Julie Robinson, School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Palliative care clinicians and researchers often seek information about patients from informants. This research examines the extent of agreement between information from patients and family caregivers who were asked to serve as collateral sources of information about the patient.

Method:

Sixty-six patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers participated in the study. Two measurement contexts were examined: Direct observation of patients' cognitive performance (Mini-Mental State Examination) was compared with carers' subjective reports about patients' everyday cognition (Cognitive Decline subscale of the Psychogeriatric Assessment Scale), and subjective reports about patient depression were compared between patients and carers who completed parallel forms of the same scale (Geriatric Depression Scale and Geriatric Depression Scale–Collateral Source, respectively). The relationship between patient-completed and carer-completed measures was examined in four ways: the correlation between total scores in the sample, agreement about the prevalence of impaired functioning and of specific symptoms in the sample, agreement concerning whether particular patients showed impaired functioning, and agreement about the presence or absence of a specific symptom for a particular patient.

Results:

Although most measures of agreement showed that information provided by patients and carers was related, the magnitude of discrepancies was substantial.

Significance of results:

There was no empirical justification for substituting information from a collateral source for information provided by the patient for any of the measures of agreement for either cognition or depression. The use of information from collateral sources is most appropriate when information from the patient is likely to be incomplete or inaccurate, when insight into caregivers' needs or understanding is sought, and when using a multi-informant approach to assessment.

Keywords

Collateral sourceProxyPalliativeDepressionCognition
Type
Original Articles
Information
Palliative & Supportive Care , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 69 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bakitas, M., Ahles, T.A., Skalla, K., et al. (2008). Proxy perspectives regarding end-of-life care for persons with cancer. Cancer, 112, 1854–1861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunelli, C., Constantini, M., Di Giulio, P., et al. (1998). Quality-of-life evaluation: When do terminal cancer patients and health-care providers agree? Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 15, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacchione, P.Z., Powlishta, K.K., Grant, E.A., et al. (2003). Accuracy of collateral source reports in very mild to mild dementia of the Alzheimer type. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51, 819–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fins, J., Maltby, B., Friedmann, E., et al. (2005). Contracts, covenants and advanced care planning: An empirical study. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 29, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S., & McHugh, P.R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jorm, A. & Mackinnon, A. (1995). Psychogeriatric Assessment Scales: User's Guide and Materials. Canberra, Australia: ANUTECH Pty. Ltd.Google Scholar
Kutner, J., Bryant, L., Beaty, B., et al. (2006). Symptom distress and quality-of-life assessment at the end of life: The role of proxy response. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 32, 300–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lobchuk, M.M., McClement, S.E., Daeninck, P.J., et al. (2007). Asking the right question of informal caregivers about patient symptom experiences: Multiple proxy perspectives and reducing interrater gap. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 33, 130–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPherson, C.J. & Addington-Hall, J.M. (2003). Judging the quality of care at the end of life: Can proxies provide reliable information? Social Science and Medicine, 56, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute of Health. (2004). State-of-the-science statement on improving end-of-life care. 21:1–26.Google Scholar
Nekolaichuk, C.L., Bruera, E., Spachynski, K., et al. (1999). A comparison of patient and proxy symptom assessments in advanced cancer patients. Palliative Medicine, 13, 311–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitcher, R.L., Burke, W.J., Roccaforte, W.H., et al. (1993). A collateral source version of the Geriatric Depression Rating Scale. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 1, 143–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickard, A.S. & Knight, S.J. (2005). Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: A conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Medical Care, 43, 493–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reeve, J.L., Lloyd-Williams, M., & Dowrick, C. (2008). Revisiting depression in palliative care settings: The need to focus on clinical utility over validity. Palliative Medicine, 22, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yates, W.R., Labrecque, D.R., & Pfab, D. (1998). The reliability of alcoholism history in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 33, 488–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yesavage, J.A., Brink, T.L., Rose, T.L., et al. (1982–1983). Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 17, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar