Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Nov;15(11):e979-e988.
doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00136. Epub 2019 Aug 20.

Concordance of Patient and Caregiver Reports on the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Care

Affiliations

Concordance of Patient and Caregiver Reports on the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Care

Rachel D Havyer et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Nov.

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to better understand how similarly patients with colorectal cancer and caregivers view care quality and to assess factors that may influence concordance.

Materials and methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of paired patient and caregiver quality ratings of colorectal cancer care in three specific domains: surgery, chemotherapy overall, and chemotherapy nursing. Agreement was assessed with difference scores, concordance with Gwet second-order agreement statistics (AC2), and variation in agreement with stratified analyses. We examined whether the care experiences of patients and caregivers were associated with top-box (most-positive) ratings and examined variations in concordance on the basis of the presence of a top-box score.

Results: Four hundred seventeen patient-caregiver dyads completed the surveys. Quality-of-care ratings were positively skewed, with most dyads indicating top-box ratings. Patient and caregiver care experiences were highly associated with top-box ratings. Overall patient-caregiver concordance was very high for all three care domains (surgery: AC2, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.90]; chemotherapy overall: AC2, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88]; chemotherapy nursing: AC2, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.94]). Stratified analyses of patient and caregiver characteristics did not identify any patterns that consistently affected concordance. The concordance statistic significantly decreased for all three outcomes (P < .001), however, when the patient or caregiver assessed quality as anything other than top box.

Conclusion: Caregiver and patient reports on care quality were highly concordant for top-box care and did not vary with patient or caregiver factors. Additional exploration is needed to identify reasons for increased variability when the quality scores were less than a top-box response.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig A1.
Fig A1.
Ratings of quality of care. (A) Difference scores calculated as patient score minus caregiver score. (B) Difference scores separated out by caregiver perception of care quality. (C) Difference scores separated out by patient perception of care quality.

References

    1. Roydhouse JK, Wilson IB. Systematic review of caregiver responses for patient health-related quality of life in adult cancer care. Qual Life Res. 2017;26:1925–1954. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tang ST, McCorkle R. Use of family proxies in quality of life research for cancer patients at the end of life: A literature review. Cancer Invest. 2002;20:1086–1104. - PubMed
    1. von Essen L. Proxy ratings of patient quality of life--Factors related to patient-proxy agreement. Acta Oncol. 2004;43:229–234. - PubMed
    1. Giovannetti ER, Reider L, Wolff JL, et al. Do older patients and their family caregivers agree about the quality of chronic illness care? Int J Qual Health Care. 2013;25:515–524. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McPherson CJ, Addington-Hall JM. Judging the quality of care at the end of life: Can proxies provide reliable information? Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:95–109. - PubMed

Publication types