Assessment by proxy of the SF-36 and WHO-DAS 2.0. A systematic review.
Juan David Hernández, María Alejandra Spir, Kelly Payares and 4 others
PMID 37389563WHAT IT FOUND
Proxy reports on the SF-36 and WHO-DAS 2.0 match patient reports well for physical function but poorly for social and emotional domains.
Use proxy data for physical status, but do not rely on it to judge a patient's mental health or social participation.
Key findings
01Agreement between patient and proxy was high for physical domains but low for mental and social domains on the SF-36.
02For the WHO-DAS 2.0, agreement was generally good in neurological and psychiatric conditions, except for chronic back pain where proxies reported much worse function than patients.
03No studies were found validating proxy use for the MoCA, STAI, or Disability Rating Scale.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review included only 20 studies, and many had small sample sizes. Most included studies did not report confidence intervals for ICCs, limiting precision. The quality of the included studies was variable, with many failing to account for confounding factors like the proxy's relationship to the patient. The review was limited to English and Spanish publications. No data was found for several common tools (MoCA, STAI, DRS), so their proxy validity remains unknown.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that proxy reports are accurate for all domains. While physical function scores are reliable, proxies consistently misreport social functioning and emotional well-being, often underestimating the patient's distress or overestimating their disability in subjective areas.