↓ Skip to main content

Inter-rater agreement of the Quality of Life-Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD) self-rating and proxy rating scale: secondary analysis of RightTimePlaceCare data

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inter-rater agreement of the Quality of Life-Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD) self-rating and proxy rating scale: secondary analysis of RightTimePlaceCare data
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0959-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josephine Römhild, Steffen Fleischer, Gabriele Meyer, Astrid Stephan, Sandra Zwakhalen, Helena Leino-Kilpi, Adelaida Zabalegui, Kai Saks, Maria Soto-Martin, Caroline Sutcliffe, Ingalill Rahm Hallberg, Almuth Berg

Abstract

To assess the quality of life of people with dementia, measures are required for self-rating by the person with dementia, and for proxy rating by others. The Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease scale (QoL-AD) is available in two versions, QoL-AD-SR (self-rating) and QoL-AD-PR (proxy rating). The aim of our study was to analyse the inter-rater agreement between self- and proxy ratings, in terms of both the total score and the items, including an analysis specific to care setting, and to identify factors associated with this agreement. Cross-sectional QoL-AD data from the 7th Framework European RightTimePlaceCare study were analysed. A total of 1330 cases were included: n = 854 receiving home care and n = 476 receiving institutional long-term nursing care. The proxy raters were informal carers (home care) and best-informed professional carers (institutional long-term nursing care). Inter-rater agreement was investigated using Bland-Altman plots for the QoL-AD total score and by weighted kappa statistics for single items. Associations were investigated by regression analysis. The overall QoL-AD assessment of those with dementia revealed a mean value of 33.2 points, and the proxy ratings revealed a mean value of 29.8 points. The Bland-Altman plots revealed a poor agreement between self- and proxy ratings for the overall sample and for both care settings. With one exception (item 'Marriage' weighted kappa 0.26), the weighted kappa values for the single QoL-AD items were below 0.20, indicating poor agreement. Home care setting, dementia-related behavioural and psychological symptoms, and the functional status of the person with dementia, along with the caregiver burden, were associated with the level of agreement. Only the home care setting was associated with an increase larger than the predefined acceptable difference between self- and proxy ratings. Proxy quality of life ratings from professional and informal carers appear to be lower than the self-ratings of those with dementia. QoL-AD-SR and QoL-AD-PR are therefore not interchangeable, as the inter-rater agreement differs distinctly. Thus, a proxy rating should be judged as a complementary perspective for a self-assessment of quality of life by those with dementia, rather than as a valid substitute.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 18%
Student > Master 9 15%
Researcher 7 11%
Other 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 25%
Psychology 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,076,685
of 15,922,938 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#55
of 1,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,773
of 278,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,748 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them