Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of impairments of cognitive functions is expected to increase. Enhancing the QoL of those affected is important. HRQoL in people with CI can be assessed by self-report, proxy-report or observation but there is uncertainty how to best assess HRQoL in people with CI, and which assessment method is most appropriate. Therefore the aim of our study was to use Delphi methodology in order to achieve consensus on how HRQoL should be assessed in people with CI and which content domains should be assessed.
METHODS: The Delphi process consisted of three online survey rounds and a concluding consensus conference. Participants were experts as well as individuals and relatives of people affected by CI. The Delphi survey was developed based on existing literature and included 55 statements at the first round. Consensus was considered to be achieved when a minimum of 75 % of responses fell into the categories 6 (agree) and 7 (strongly agree) (positive consensus) or in categories 1 (strongly disagree) and 2 (disagree) (negative consensus).
RESULTS: Consensus was reached for a total of 41 of 56 statements/substatements. In the 1st survey round 102 experts and 11 relatives participated. In the 2nd survey round 68 experts and 11 relatives continued to participate. In the 3rd survey round 41 experts and 9 relatives participated. In the consensus conference 17 experts and 4 relatives of individuals with CI and in the second one-hour online conference session 14 experts and 2 relatives of individuals with CI participated.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the three assessment methods self-report, proxy-report and observation across all stages of CI is the preferred method and should be used whenever possible. As domains Physical capacity, Psychological, Level of Independence, Social Relationships, Environment and Spirituality/Relogion/Personal Beliefs should be assessed.
METHODS: The Delphi process consisted of three online survey rounds and a concluding consensus conference. Participants were experts as well as individuals and relatives of people affected by CI. The Delphi survey was developed based on existing literature and included 55 statements at the first round. Consensus was considered to be achieved when a minimum of 75 % of responses fell into the categories 6 (agree) and 7 (strongly agree) (positive consensus) or in categories 1 (strongly disagree) and 2 (disagree) (negative consensus).
RESULTS: Consensus was reached for a total of 41 of 56 statements/substatements. In the 1st survey round 102 experts and 11 relatives participated. In the 2nd survey round 68 experts and 11 relatives continued to participate. In the 3rd survey round 41 experts and 9 relatives participated. In the consensus conference 17 experts and 4 relatives of individuals with CI and in the second one-hour online conference session 14 experts and 2 relatives of individuals with CI participated.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the three assessment methods self-report, proxy-report and observation across all stages of CI is the preferred method and should be used whenever possible. As domains Physical capacity, Psychological, Level of Independence, Social Relationships, Environment and Spirituality/Relogion/Personal Beliefs should be assessed.
摘要：
背景：认知功能受损的患病率有望增加。提高受影响者的QoL很重要。使用CI的人的HRQoL可以通过自我报告进行评估，代理报告或观察，但不确定如何最好地评估有CI的人的HRQoL，以及哪种评估方法最合适。因此，我们研究的目的是使用Delphi方法，以便就如何评估CI人群的HRQoL以及应评估哪些内容领域达成共识。
方法：Delphi过程包括三轮在线调查和最后的共识会议。参与者是受CI影响的专家以及个人和亲属。Delphi调查是在现有文献的基础上进行的，第一轮调查包括55条陈述。当至少有75％的答复属于第6类（同意）和第7类（强烈同意）（积极共识）或第1类（强烈不同意）和第2类（不同意）（消极共识）时，就认为达成了共识。
结果：在56项声明/陈述中，共有41项达成共识。在第一轮调查中，有102位专家和11位亲戚参加了调查。在第二轮调查中，68名专家和11名亲属继续参与。在第三轮调查中，41名专家和9名亲属参加了调查。在共识会议中，有17位专家和4位CI人士的亲属，在第二个一小时的在线会议中，有14位专家和2位CI人士的亲属参加了会议。
结论：三种评估方法的结合自我报告，代理报告和CI所有阶段的观察是首选方法，应尽可能使用。作为域物理容量，心理,独立程度,社会关系,应评估环境和灵性/亲属/个人信仰。
方法：Delphi过程包括三轮在线调查和最后的共识会议。参与者是受CI影响的专家以及个人和亲属。Delphi调查是在现有文献的基础上进行的，第一轮调查包括55条陈述。当至少有75％的答复属于第6类（同意）和第7类（强烈同意）（积极共识）或第1类（强烈不同意）和第2类（不同意）（消极共识）时，就认为达成了共识。
结果：在56项声明/陈述中，共有41项达成共识。在第一轮调查中，有102位专家和11位亲戚参加了调查。在第二轮调查中，68名专家和11名亲属继续参与。在第三轮调查中，41名专家和9名亲属参加了调查。在共识会议中，有17位专家和4位CI人士的亲属，在第二个一小时的在线会议中，有14位专家和2位CI人士的亲属参加了会议。
结论：三种评估方法的结合自我报告，代理报告和CI所有阶段的观察是首选方法，应尽可能使用。作为域物理容量，心理,独立程度,社会关系,应评估环境和灵性/亲属/个人信仰。
