(Stroke. 1999;30:934-938.)
© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions |
Disagreement in Patient and Carer Assessment of Functional Abilities After Stroke
From the School of Healthcare Studies (P.K.) and School of Psychology (J.H.), University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Correspondence to Dr P. Knapp, School of Healthcare Studies, 10 Clarendon Road, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9NN, UK. E-mail p.r.knapp{at}leeds.ac.uk
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background and Purpose—The aims of this study were to describe differences between functional ability assessments made by stroke patients and their informal carers and to investigate the psychological associates of the difference in assessments.
Methods—A prospective design was used, with repeated assessments of function, mood, and carer strain. Thirty hospital stroke patients and their main carer were interviewed 3 times: within 1 month of stroke, 1 month after discharge, and 6 months after discharge.
Results—There were significant differences between patient and carer assessments at all 3 time points, with patient self-assessment less disabled than carer assessment (at least P<0.02). The disagreement in assessment was unrelated to patient or carer mood (P>0.05) but greater disagreement was associated with greater carer strain (P<0.05). The source of the disagreement in functional ability assessment remains unclear.
Conclusions—The method of assessment affects the rating of functional abilities after stroke. Carer strain is potentially increased when the patient or carer makes an unrealistic assessment of the patient's level of independence.
Key Words: activities of daily living • caregivers • mood disorders • neuropsychological tests • stroke
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Research in the rehabilitation of people with stroke has led to a growth in the number of scales to measure functional abilities. Instruments such as the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale1 and the Frenchay Activities Index2 have been established in stroke research and practice.
The problems of using proxy ratings of the patient's functional abilities and the possible biases found in this method have been recognized for some time.3 4 The difference between patient and proxy ratings is important, because proxy ratings are used in both clinical and research work. This is particularly the case when patients have communication problems or their account is inconsistent or inconvenient to take.
The Barthel Index,5 one of the oldest and most often used measures in stroke research and practice, has been shown to be equally reliable in face-to-face and telephone interviews, although some moderate and severe disability may go undetected by telephone.6 Other studies suggest there may be differences in responses according to the method used. For example, carers tended to report lower patient abilities than the assessments made by occupational therapists.7 Similarly, doctors' ratings of patient abilities from clinical interviews tended to be higher than nurses' ratings from patient observation.8
Despite these findings, there has been little attempt to search for explanatory factors. The only consistent finding is that discrepant ratings are more likely when patients are older.7
The study reported here attempts to look for factors associated with discrepant ratings, as a means of understanding their origins. It does this in 2 ways: first, by asking patients and carers to make ratings of functional abilities over time (to see whether differences in ratings covary); and second, by looking at the association between discrepant ratings, mood, and carer strain. We have chosen mood disorder and carer strain because both are often reported after stroke and are said to influence patient function. We therefore wanted to evaluate their effects on reported function.
|
Subjects and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Design
A prospective study of stroke patients and their carers was undertaken with repeated assessments of function, mood, and carer strain. Patients and carers were interviewed separately, and all data were collected by one of the authors (P.K.).
Sample
Recruitment was from consecutive admissions to 2 hospital wards
(elderly care and neurology). Patients were approached if they met the
following inclusion criteria: (1) the first-ever stroke occurred within
the past month; (2) the patient was well enough to interview, with
sufficient language (assessed by speech and language therapist) and
cognition (assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination9 );
(3) a named carer was also willing to participate; (4) the patient
lived independently before the stroke, and (5) written consent was
obtained. Patients' participation in the study did not affect their
care: they received treatment as usual.
Assessments
Physical Function
The patient's functional ability was assessed with the Barthel
Index.5 The scale is scored 0 to 20, with higher scores
indicating greater functional ability.
Mood
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale10
was used to measure mood. The HAD has subscales for anxiety and
depression (scored 0 to 21) in which a higher score indicates a greater
likelihood of clinical significance. The HAD has been shown to be
reliable when used with the physically ill.11
Carer Strain
The scale developed by Greene et al12 was used to
assess carer strain. This scale was originally developed for carers of
people with dementia, although its items are not illness specific. The
scale has 3 subscales: personal distress, domestic upset, and negative
feelings. The total scale is scored 0 to 60, with higher scores
indicating greater carer strain.
Timing
All participants were interviewed 3 times: at the hospital
within 1 month of stroke (T1); at home 1 month after discharge (T2);
and at home 6 months after discharge (T3). All participants completed
the HAD and the Barthel scales at each interview (T1, T2, and T3) and
also rated the prestroke Barthel (T0) at the first interview. Patients
used the Barthel Index to assess themselves while carers used the
instrument to assess the patient. Carers completed the Carer Strain
measure at T2 and T3.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The sample of thirty stroke patients (14 women, 16 men) was recruited over 5 months. Twenty-seven patients with stroke did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 4 patients who did meet the criteria refused to participate. Patients were aged 47 to 85 (median, 72) years. The 30 carers (19 women, 11 men) were aged 30 to 81 years. More than half the carers were spouses of the patients, while 9 were children of the patients. Before the stroke, 20 patients and carers were coresident; after stroke, 22 lived together. Median length of hospital stay was 37 days (interquartile range, 10 to 97 days).
Barthel Index Scores
The Barthel scores for the sample of patients showed the expected
pattern of high prestroke scores, followed by low scores after stroke
and then a recovery in the following months. The pattern was similar
for assessments made by patients and carers (see Table 1
).
|
The patients reported significantly higher scores than carers at all poststroke time points (Wilcoxon signed matched-pairs test; T1: Z=2.42, P=0.016; T2: Z=2.92, P=0.003; and T3: Z=2.69, P=0.007). Patients' and carers' scores were not significantly different on the prestroke assessment (T0: Z=-0.72, P=0.47).
Agreement between patient and carer assessments was greatest at
the prestroke time point (T0), but more than half the patient-carer
pairs disagreed at the 3 poststroke time points (see Table 2). At each time point a small number of
pairs disagreed, but against the main trend, in that the carer made a
higher Barthel assessment. The magnitude of the disagreement between
patient and carers was small at all time points, with median
disagreements of 2 Barthel points or less.
|
Altman-Bland plots13 were drawn to see whether the
discrepancy in Barthel Index scores was biased toward a particular
range of scores. These plots comprised the mean Barthel assessment of
each patient-carer pair on 1 axis and absolute difference in
assessment. The variables were associated at T2 and T3 but not at
T0 or T1 (Spearman ranks, T0: r=-.38, P=0.06;
T1: r=-.06, P=0.74; T2: r=-.66,
P<0.001; and T3: r=-.64, P<0.001).
These results suggest that discrepancy was more likely when the Barthel
score was lower, although the scatterplots show that there is not a
straightforward linear relationship between the 2 variables (see
the Figure).
|
Discrepant Assessments and Other Variables
To see whether other variables were associated with the
patient-carer discrepancy in Barthel assessment, the 30 pairs were
split, post hoc, into 2 groups. The first group comprised those pairs
in which the patient's assessment of functional abilities was higher
than that of the carer; the second group comprised the pairs who agreed
on their assessment, as well as the small number whose disagreement was
in the opposite direction. This split was used because the pairs making
up the first group were the main interest of the study. The sizes of
the 2 groups formed by this split varied: at T1 the split was 15:15; at
T2 it was 13:17; and at T3 it was 14:16.
Patient and Carer Mood Scores
The median HAD scores for all patients and carers and the 2 groups
at the 3 poststroke time points are summarized in Table 3. Neither patient nor carer mood, as
measured by total HAD scores, was associated with the discrepant or
agreement groups. Separate analyses of the anxiety and
depression subscores showed the same pattern and are not shown in the
table.
|
Carer Strain
The scores obtained at both poststroke time points were
lower than the mean total strain score reported by the Greene et al
study12 of carers of people with dementia. The total and
subscale carer strain scores of the 2 groups of pairs were compared in
the same way as for the mood scores.
Table 4 shows that carers in
discrepant pairs (ie, those in which the carer thought the patient less
able than the patient's own assessment) had higher strain scores. This
difference was more marked at T3, 6 months after discharge, than at T2,
some 5 months earlier. Only the total scale and 1 of the subscales,
personal distress, were significantly higher at T2. At T3 the total
strain score and 2 subscale scores were significantly higher among
carers in discrepant pairs.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This study has both confirmed previous work and generated new findings. Stroke patients and their carers made different assessments of stroke-related restrictions in activities of daily living, as measured by the Barthel Index. The difference in assessment was consistent over 3 time points after stroke, including the time after discharge from hospital when patient and carer had most contact. The difference in scores was small, approximately 1 to 2 points on a 20-point scale, and patient-carer assessments were highly correlated. The high positive correlation suggests that neither party was being globally unrealistic in their assessment.
That different assessments of abilities might be a source of difficulty was tested by analyzing discrepancy and mood and then discrepancy and carer strain. Patient and carer mood scores were not associated with the discrepancy in assessments. Carer strain, however, was associated with discrepancy at both time points after discharge from hospital. Previous work has shown that carer strain tends to persist and is associated with negative patient outcomes.14
Measurement error is a possible explanation of differences in assessment, but the Barthel Index is reliable,15 16 and measurement error cannot explain the systematic differences in patient and carer assessments.
This study is small, and its findings are in need of replication.
Another, larger study will need to separate the effects of discrepancy
in assessments and severity of disability in their association with
carer strain. Both carer strain and discrepant ratings were greater in
more disabled patients. This may be a real effect, but the problem of
confounding needs to be tackled. A larger study would also clarify the
relationship between disagreement and level of disability. In this
study, the ratings of a few highly disagreeing pairs may have affected
the statistical relationship between the 2 variables (see the
Figure
). The Barthel Index is popular but relatively insensitive. It
would be useful to know whether carers and patients differ in their
assessment on another activities of daily living scale, and how
meaningful small magnitude differences are in clinical practice.
The finding that carers and patients differed consistently in their ratings of functional abilities is important, because the score obtained may depend on whom is asked. This is particularly relevant to the repeated assessment of a patient's progress in rehabilitation.
The main finding of this study is the association of carer strain with discrepant assessments, suggesting 2 explanations: first, that different perceptions of the patient's abilities can be a source of conflict and potentially long-lasting problems, and second, that a distorted estimate of abilities on the part of patient or carer is a result of carer strain. The study cannot identify the source of the discrepancy but has shown that the difference in assessment of functional abilities can be a problem in itself. Different perceptions might result from a misunderstanding of the nature and consequences of stroke or, alternatively, from unrealistic expectations about recovery. Both these problems should be responsive to clinical intervention.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Dr Knapp's work on this study was supported by a postgraduate studentship grant from the United Kingdom Economic & Social Research Council. We should like to thank the patients and their carers, without whose participation this study could not have taken place. We wish to thank Dr Allan House, Dr John Young, and 2 anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Received November 19, 1998; revision received February 22, 1999; accepted February 24, 1999.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Nouri FM, Lincoln NB. An extended activities of daily living scale for stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:301–305.
2. Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1983;12:470–480.
3. Andrews K, Stewart J. Stroke recovery: he can but does he? Rheum Rehabil. 1979;18:43–48.
4. Spranger MAG, Aaronson NK. 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. 1992;45:743–760.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md St J. 1965;14:61–65.
6. Korner-Bitensky N, Wood-Dauphinee S, Siemiatycki J, Shapiro S, Becker R. Health related information post discharge: telephone versus face-to-face interviewing. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:1287–1296.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7.
Wyller TB, Sveen U, Bautz-Holter E. The Barthel ADL
Index one year after stroke: comparison between relatives' and
occupational therapists' scores. Age Ageing. 1995;24:398–401.
8.
Ranhoff AH, Laake K. The Barthel ADL Index: scoring by
the physician from patient interview is not reliable. Age
Ageing. 1993;22:171–174.
9. Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh P. "Mini-mental state": a practical method for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–198.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Zigmond A, Snaith R. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361–370.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Bowling A. Measuring Disease: A Review Of Disease-Specific Quality of Life Measurement Scales. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press; 1995:76.
12.
Greene J, Smith R, Gardiner M, Timbury G.
Measuring behavioural disturbance of elderly demented patients
in the community and its effects on relatives: a factor analytic study.
Age Ageing. 1982;11:121–126.
13. Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician. 1983;32:307–317.
14. Tompkins C, Schulz R, Rau M. Post-stroke depression in primary support persons: predicting those at risk. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56:502–508.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Granger CV, Albrecht GL, Hamilton BB. Outcome of comprehensive medical rehabilitation: measurement by PULSES profile and the Barthel Index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1979;60:145–154.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Roy CW, Togneneri J, Hay E, Pentland B. An inter-rater reliability study of the Barthel index. Int J Rehabil Res. 1988;11:67–70.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  M.-H. Chen, C.-L. Hsieh, H.-F. Mao, and S.-L. Huang Differences between patient and proxy reports in the assessment of disability after stroke Clinical Rehabilitation, April 1, 2007; 21(4): 351 - 356. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J M A. Visser-Meily, M. W M Post, I. I Riphagen, and E. Lindeman Measures used to assess burden among caregivers of stroke patients: a review Clinical Rehabilitation, June 1, 2004; 18(6): 601 - 623. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. R Tooth, K. T McKenna, and M. Smith Further evidence for the agreement between patients with stroke and their proxies on the Frenchay Activities Index Clinical Rehabilitation, June 1, 2003; 17(6): 656 - 665. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||