Literature DB >> 17724621

Conducting routine fatigue assessments for use in clinical oncology practice: patient and provider perspectives.

Kimberly M Davis1, Jin-Shei Lai, Elizabeth A Hahn, David Cella.   

Abstract

GOALS OF WORK: Fatigue is the most common symptom associated with cancer and its treatment. The present study measured patient and provider perceptions of the feasibility and acceptability of conducting computerized fatigue assessments during routine follow-up outpatient clinic visits.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A subset of 64 patients from a larger study, testing items for inclusion in a fatigue item bank, completed two computerized fatigue assessments at 2- to 3-month intervals. After the second assessment, patients completed a questionnaire about the usefulness of the assessments and the understandability of graphic reports depicting the fatigue scores. They were also asked about the optimal frequency for conducting fatigue assessments. Providers were asked similar feasibility questions. MAIN
RESULTS: Providers thought displays of fatigue scores would be more useful than patients did. Patients and providers also differed on the frequency with which fatigue assessments should be conducted. Interestingly, of the 37% of patients who reported that assessments should be conducted at a different frequency than the choices that were offered, 50% reported that the assessments should be conducted according to their treatment schedule. The majority of providers thought fatigue assessments should be administered at each MD visit.
CONCLUSION: Patients and providers differed about the perceived usefulness of displaying fatigue scores and the frequency with which routine assessments should be conducted. However, both patients and providers appeared to endorse the notion that routine assessments would be beneficial. Integration of routine assessments of commonly experienced symptoms such as fatigue may have important implications for improving symptom management in the future, ultimately resulting in better overall patient care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17724621     DOI: 10.1007/s00520-007-0317-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Support Care Cancer        ISSN: 0941-4355            Impact factor:   3.603


  39 in total

Review 1.  Endpoints in cancer clinical trials: is there a need for measuring quality of life?

Authors:  R Feld
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  The use of quality of life data in clinical practice.

Authors:  J Morris; D Perez; B McNoe
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Cancer fatigue: the way forward.

Authors:  Gregory Curt; Patrick G Johnston
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2003

4.  NCCN Practice Guidelines for Cancer-Related Fatigue.

Authors:  V Mock; A Atkinson; A Barsevick; D Cella; B Cimprich; C Cleeland; J Donnelly; M A Eisenberger; C Escalante; P Hinds; P B Jacobsen; P Kaldor; S J Knight; A Peterman; B F Piper; H Rugo; P Sabbatini; C Stahl
Journal:  Oncology (Williston Park)       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 2.990

5.  Assessing the functional status of older patients with chronic illness.

Authors:  G Goldsmith; M Brodwick
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  1989 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.756

6.  Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part II: acceptability and usability.

Authors:  Kristin H Mullen; Donna L Berry; Brenda K Zierler
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2004-09-17       Impact factor: 2.172

7.  Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-02-15       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  The prevalence and correlates of fatigue in patients receiving treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. A comparison with the fatigue experienced by healthy individuals.

Authors:  D Irvine; L Vincent; J E Graydon; N Bubela; L Thompson
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 2.592

9.  Feasibility and compliance of automated measurement of quality of life in oncology practice.

Authors:  E P Wright; P J Selby; M Crawford; A Gillibrand; C Johnston; T J Perren; R Rush; A Smith; G Velikova; K Watson; A Gould; A Cull
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor-patient interactions in oncology.

Authors:  G Velikova; J M Brown; A B Smith; P J Selby
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2002-01-07       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  5 in total

1.  simpolycat: an SAS program for conducting CAT simulation based on polytomous IRT models.

Authors:  Ssu-Kuang Chen; Karon F Cook
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-05

2.  Information visualizations of symptom information for patients and providers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Maichou Lor; Theresa A Koleck; Suzanne Bakken
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  The challenge of measuring intra-individual change in fatigue during cancer treatment.

Authors:  Carol M Moinpour; Gary W Donaldson; Kimberly M Davis; Arnold L Potosky; Roxanne E Jensen; Julie R Gralow; Anthony L Back; Jimmy J Hwang; Jihye Yoon; Debra L Bernard; Deena R Loeffler; Nan E Rothrock; Ron D Hays; Bryce B Reeve; Ashley Wilder Smith; Elizabeth A Hahn; David Cella
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Cancer-related fatigue: clinical practice versus practice guidelines.

Authors:  Doranne L Hilarius; Paul H Kloeg; Elsken van der Wall; Manon Komen; Chad M Gundy; Neil K Aaronson
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  Low incidence of fatigue after hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Chiranjeev Dash; Kristina Demas; Sunghae Uhm; Heather N Hanscom; Joy S Kim; Simeng Suy; Kimberly M Davis; Jennifer Sween; Sean Collins; Lucile L Adams-Campbell
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2012-10-17       Impact factor: 6.244

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.