McCollum, L., & Karlawish, J. (2020). Cognitive impairment evaluation and management. Medical Clinics, 104(5), 807–825.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bangma, D. F., Tucha, O., Tucha, L., De Deyn, P. P., & Koerts, J. (2021). How well do people living with neurodegenerative diseases manage their finances? A meta-analysis and systematic review on the capacity to make financial decisions in people living with neurodegenerative diseases. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 127, 709–739.

Article  Google Scholar 

Elliott, M. N., Beckett, M. K., Chong, K., Hambarsoomians, K., & Hays, R. D. (2008). How do proxy responses and proxy‐assisted responses differ from what Medicare beneficiaries might have reported about their health care? Health Services Research, 43(3), 833–848.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Nelson, L. M., Longstreth, W., Jr., Koepsell, T. D., Checkoway, H., & van Belle, G. (1994). Completeness and accuracy of interview data from proxy respondents: Demographic, medical, and life-style factors. Epidemiology, 5, 204–217.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Campbell, P. T., Sloan, M., & Kreiger, N. (2007). Utility of proxy versus index respondent information in a population-based case–control study of rapidly fatal cancers. Annals of Epidemiology, 17(4), 253–257.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Germain, N., Aballéa, S., & Toumi, M. (2019). Measuring health-related quality of life in young children: How far have we come? Journal of Market Access & Health Policy, 7(1), 1618661.

Article  Google Scholar 

Jiang, M., Ma, Y., Li, M., Meng, R., Ma, A., & Chen, P. (2021). A comparison of self-reported and proxy-reported health utilities in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 19, 1–13.

Article  Google Scholar 

Rydén, L., Sigström, R., Nilsson, J., Sundh, V., Falk Erhag, H., Kern, S., Waern, M., Östling, S., Wilhelmson, K., & Skoog, I. (2019). Agreement between self-reports, proxy-reports and the National Patient Register regarding diagnoses of cardiovascular disorders and diabetes mellitus in a population-based sample of 80-year-olds. Age and Ageing, 48(4), 513–518.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Health and Retirement Study. (2021). Proxy selection in the health and retirement study. University of Michigan. https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/sites/default/files/biblio/Proxy%20selection%20in%20HRS_0.pdf.

Logsdon, R. G., Gibbons, L. E., McCurry, S. M., & Teri, L. (2002). Assessing quality of life in older adults with cognitive impairment. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(3), 510–519.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kim, A. S., Betz, J. F., Albert, M., Deal, J. A., Faucette, S. P., Oh, E. S., Reed, N. S., Lin, F. R., & Nieman, C. L. (2022). Accuracy of self-and proxy-rated hearing among older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 70(2), 490–500.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Pugh, R. J., Ellison, A., Pye, K., Subbe, C. P., Thorpe, C. M., Lone, N. I., & Clegg, A. (2018). Feasibility and reliability of frailty assessment in the critically ill: A systematic review. Critical Care, 22, 1–11.

Article  Google Scholar 

Roydhouse, J. K., Cohen, M. L., Eshoj, H. R., Corsini, N., Yucel, E., Rutherford, C., Wac, K., Berrocal, A., Lanzi, A., & Nowinski, C. (2021). The use of proxies and proxy-reported measures: A report of the international society for quality of life research (ISOQOL) proxy task force. Quality of Life Research, 1–11.

Caiels, J., Rand, S., Crowther, T., Collins, G., & Forder, J. (2019). Exploring the views of being a proxy from the perspective of unpaid carers and paid carers: Developing a proxy version of the adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT). BMC Health Services Research, 19, 1–11.

Article  Google Scholar 

Lynn Snow, A., Cook, K. F., Lin, P. S., Morgan, R. O., & Magaziner, J. (2005). Proxies and other external raters: methodological considerations. Health Services Research, 40(5p2), 1676–1693.

Menon, G., Bickart, B., Sudman, S., & Blair, J. (1995). How well do you know your partner? Strategies for formulating proxy-reports and their effects on convergence to self-reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(1), 75–84.

Article  Google Scholar 

Cobb, C. (2018). Answering for someone else: Proxy reports in survey research. In D. L. Vannette & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.),The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research, 87–93.Palgrave Macmillan.

Lopez, A., Tinella, L., Caffò, A., & Bosco, A. (2023). Measuring the reliability of proxy respondents in behavioural assessments: An open question. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 35(10), 2173–2190.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Neumann, P. J., Araki, S. S., & Gutterman, E. M. (2000). The use of proxy respondents in studies of older adults: Lessons, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48(12), 1646–1654.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

McPhail, S., Beller, E., & Haines, T. (2008). Two perspectives of proxy reporting of health-related quality of life using the Euroqol-5D, an investigation of agreement. Medical Care, 46(11), 1140–1148.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Pickard, A. S., & Knight, S. J. (2005). Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: A conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Medical Care, 43(5), 493–499.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lobchuk, M. M., McClement, S. E., Daeninck, P. J., Shay, C., & Elands, H. (2007). Asking the right question of informal caregivers about patient symptom experiences: Multiple proxy perspectives and reducing interrater gap. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 33(2), 130–145.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Egan, P. (2020). Perspective taking by dementia family caregivers: A multi-method study of how proxy reporters assess quality of life in dementia (Order No. 28001284). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection. (2415396659). http://ezproxy.utas.edu.au/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/perspective-taking-dementia-family-caregivers/docview/2415396659/se-2.

Lobchuk, M. M., McClement, S. E., Daeninck, P. J., & Elands, H. (2007). Caregiver thoughts and feelings in response to different perspective-taking prompts. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 33(4), 420–433.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rand, S., & Caiels, J. (2015). Using proxies to assess quality of life: a review of the issues and challenges.Discussion paper. Quality and outcomes of person-centred care policy research unit (QORU). University of Kent. Available from https://kar.kent.ac.uk/55009/1/Proxy%20literature%20review%20report%20FINAL.pdf.

US Food and Drug Administration. (2018). Attachment to discussion document for patient-focused drug development public workshop on guidance 3: Select, develop or modify fit-for-purpose clinical outcome assessments—Appendices 2018. https://www.fda.gov/media/116281/download

European Medicines Agency. (2016). Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man: The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies.

Kinghorn, P., & Afentou, N. (2020). Proxy responses to ICECAP-A: Exploring variation across multiple proxy assessments of capability well-being for the same individuals. PLoS ONE, 15(7), e0236584.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy: Effects of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(1), 42–58.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gundy, C. M., & Aaronson, N. K. (2008). The influence of proxy perspective on patient-proxy agreement in the evaluation of health-related quality of life: An empirical study. Medical Care, 46(2), 209–216.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Leontjevas, R., Teerenstra, S., Smalbrugge, M., Koopmans, R. T., & Gerritsen, D. L. (2016). Quality of life assessments in nursing homes revealed a tendency of proxies to moderate patients’ self-reports. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 80, 123–133.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tol, M. C., Kuipers, J. P., Willigenburg, N. W., Willems, H. C., & Poolman, R. W. (2021). How are you doing in the eyes of your spouse? Level of agreement between the self-completed EQ-5D-5L and two proxy perspectives in an orthopaedic population: A randomized agreement study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 19(1), 1–8.

Article  Google Scholar 

Engel, L., Sokolova, V., Bogatyreva, E., & Leuenberger, A. (2024). Understanding the influence of different proxy perspectives in explaining the difference between self-rated and proxy-rated quality of life in people living with dementia: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research, 1–12.

Shepherd, V. (2022). (Re) Conceptualising ‘good’ proxy decision-making for research: The implications for proxy consent decision quality. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1), 75.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

King, T., Cook, S., & Childs, J. H. (2012). Interviewing proxy versus self-reporting respondents to obtain information regarding living situations. Paper Presented at the 67th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), Orlando, Florida, May 17–20, 2012. http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2012/Files/400243_500698.pdf.

Katz, J., Luck, J., & Fulton, J. (2022). Lessons learned from conducting paired cognitive interview studies to examine the feasibility of proxy reporting. Survey Practice, 15(1).

Lobchuk, M. M., & Vorauer, J. D. (2003). Family caregiver perspective-taking and accuracy in estimating cancer patient symptom experiences. Social Science & Medicine, 57(12), 2379–2384.

Article  Google Scholar 

Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O’Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., Kastner, M., & Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291–1294.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 1–7.

Article  Google Scholar 

Peters, M. D. (2016). In no uncertain terms: The importance of a defined objective in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 14(2), 1–4.

Google Scholar 

Aromataris, E., & Munn, Z. (Eds.). (2020). JBI Manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01

Book  Google Scholar 

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.

Article  Google Scholar 

Peters, M. D., Marnie, C., Colquhoun, H., Garritty, C. M., Hempel, S., Horsley, T., Langlois, E. V., Lillie, E., O’Brien, K. K., & Tunçalp, Ӧ. (2021). Scoping reviews: Reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1–6.