Agreement Between Child Self-report and Caregiver-Proxy Report for Symptoms and Functioning of Children Undergoing Cancer Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Adult patients are considered the best reporters of their own health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Self-report in pediatrics has been challenged by a limited array of valid measures. Caregiver report is therefore often used as a proxy for child report. Objectives: To examine the degree of alignment between child and caregiver proxy report for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) HRQOL domains among children with cancer and to identify factors associated with better child and caregiver-proxy congruence. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter cohort study, children with a first cancer diagnosis and their caregivers completed surveys at 2 time points: within 72 hours preceding treatment initiation (T1) and during follow-up (T2), when symptom burden was expected to be higher (eg, 7-17 days later for chemotherapy). Data were collected from October 26, 2016, to October 5, 2018, at 9 pediatric oncology hospitals. Five hundred eighty children (aged 7-18 years) and their caregivers were approached; 482 child-caregiver dyads completed surveys at T1 (response rate 83%), and 403 completed surveys at T2 (84% of T1 participants). Data were analyzed from July 1, 2019, to April 22, 2020. Exposures: Participants received up-front cancer treatment, including chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Congruence between child self-report and caregiver-proxy report of PROMIS pediatric domains of mobility (physical functioning), pain interference, fatigue, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and psychological stress. Results: Of the 482 dyads included in the analysis, 262 children (54%) were male (mean [SD] age, 12.9 [3.4] years), 80 (17%) were Black, and 71 (15%) were Hispanic. Intraclass correlations between child self-report and caregiver proxy report showed moderate agreement for mobility (0.57 [95% CI, 0.50-0.63]) and poor agreement for symptoms (range, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.24-0.41] for fatigue to 0.42 [95% CI, 0.34-0.50] for psychological stress). Children reported lower symptom burden and higher mobility than caregivers reported. In a multivariable model adjusted for child and parent sociodemographic factors and the caregiver's own self-reported HRQOL, caregivers reported the child's mobility score 6.00 points worse than the child's self-report at T2 (95% CI, -7.45 to -4.51), exceeding the PROMIS minimally important difference of 3 points. Caregivers overestimated the child's self-reported symptom levels, ranging from 5.79 (95% CI, 3.99-7.60) points for psychological stress to 13.69 (95% CI, 11.60-15.78) points for fatigue. The caregiver's own self-reported HRQOL was associated with the magnitude of difference between child and caregiver scores for all domains except mobility; for example, for fatigue, the magnitude of difference between child and caregiver-proxy scores increased by 0.21 (95% CI, 0.13-0.30) points for each 1-point increase in the caregiver's own fatigue score. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that caregivers consistently overestimated symptoms and underestimated mobility relative to the children themselves. These results suggest that elicitation of the child's own report should be pursued whenever possible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".