PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a computer-based geriatric assessment via two methods of electronic data capture ( SupportScreen and REDCap) compared with paper-and-pencil data capture among older adults with cancer. METHODS:Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years old, had a cancer diagnosis, and were fluent in English. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four arms, in which they completed the geriatric assessment twice: (1) REDCap and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; (2) REDCap in both sessions; (3) SupportScreen and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; and (4) SupportScreen in both sessions. The feasibility, reliability, and validity of the computer-based geriatric assessment compared with paper and pencil were evaluated. RESULTS:The median age of participants (N = 100) was 71 years (range, 65 to 91 years) and the diagnosis was solid tumor (82%) or hematologic malignancy (18%). For session 1, REDCap took significantly longer to complete than paper and pencil (median, 21 minutes [range, 11 to 44 minutes] v median, 15 minutes [range, 9 to 29 minutes], P < .01) or SupportScreen (median, 16 minutes [range, 6 to 38 minutes], P < .01). There were no significant differences in completion times between SupportScreen and paper and pencil ( P = .50). The computer-based geriatric assessment was feasible. Few participants (8%) needed help with completing the geriatric assessment (REDCap, n = 7 and SupportScreen, n = 1), 89% reported that the length was "just right," and 67% preferred the computer-based geriatric assessment to paper and pencil. Test-retest reliability was high (Spearman correlation coefficient ≥ 0.79) for all scales except for social activity. Validity among similar scales was demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Delivering a computer-based geriatric assessment is feasible, reliable, and valid. SupportScreen methodology is preferred to REDCap.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a computer-based geriatric assessment via two methods of electronic data capture ( SupportScreen and REDCap) compared with paper-and-pencil data capture among older adults with cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years old, had a cancer diagnosis, and were fluent in English. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four arms, in which they completed the geriatric assessment twice: (1) REDCap and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; (2) REDCap in both sessions; (3) SupportScreen and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; and (4) SupportScreen in both sessions. The feasibility, reliability, and validity of the computer-based geriatric assessment compared with paper and pencil were evaluated. RESULTS: The median age of participants (N = 100) was 71 years (range, 65 to 91 years) and the diagnosis was solid tumor (82%) or hematologic malignancy (18%). For session 1, REDCap took significantly longer to complete than paper and pencil (median, 21 minutes [range, 11 to 44 minutes] v median, 15 minutes [range, 9 to 29 minutes], P < .01) or SupportScreen (median, 16 minutes [range, 6 to 38 minutes], P < .01). There were no significant differences in completion times between SupportScreen and paper and pencil ( P = .50). The computer-based geriatric assessment was feasible. Few participants (8%) needed help with completing the geriatric assessment (REDCap, n = 7 and SupportScreen, n = 1), 89% reported that the length was "just right," and 67% preferred the computer-based geriatric assessment to paper and pencil. Test-retest reliability was high (Spearman correlation coefficient ≥ 0.79) for all scales except for social activity. Validity among similar scales was demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Delivering a computer-based geriatric assessment is feasible, reliable, and valid. SupportScreen methodology is preferred to REDCap.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Arti Hurria; Kayo Togawa; Supriya G Mohile; Cynthia Owusu; Heidi D Klepin; Cary P Gross; Stuart M Lichtman; Ajeet Gajra; Smita Bhatia; Vani Katheria; Shira Klapper; Kurt Hansen; Rupal Ramani; Mark Lachs; F Lennie Wong; William P Tew Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Arti Hurria; Supriya Gupta; Marjorie Zauderer; Enid L Zuckerman; Harvey J Cohen; Hyman Muss; Miriam Rodin; Katherine S Panageas; Jimmie C Holland; Leonard Saltz; Mark G Kris; Ariela Noy; Jorge Gomez; Ann Jakubowski; Clifford Hudis; Alice B Kornblith Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Arti Hurria; Constance T Cirrincione; Hyman B Muss; Alice B Kornblith; William Barry; Andrew S Artz; Linda Schmieder; Rafat Ansari; William P Tew; Douglas Weckstein; Jeffrey Kirshner; Kayo Togawa; Kurt Hansen; Vani Katheria; Richard Stone; Ilene Galinsky; John Postiglione; Harvey Jay Cohen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hans Wildiers; Pieter Heeren; Martine Puts; Eva Topinkova; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Martine Extermann; Claire Falandry; Andrew Artz; Etienne Brain; Giuseppe Colloca; Johan Flamaing; Theodora Karnakis; Cindy Kenis; Riccardo A Audisio; Supriya Mohile; Lazzaro Repetto; Barbara Van Leeuwen; Koen Milisen; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joanna Collerton; Daniel Collerton; Yasumichi Arai; Karen Barrass; Martin Eccles; Carol Jagger; Ian McKeith; Brian K Saxby; Tom Kirkwood Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2007-08-14 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Araba Adjei; Jan C Buckner; Elizabeth Cathcart-Rake; Hongbin Chen; Harvey J Cohen; Dyda Dao; Jo-Ellen De Luca; Josephine Feliciano; Rachel A Freedman; Richard M Goldberg; Judith Hopkins; Joleen Hubbard; Aminah Jatoi; Meghan Karuturi; Margaret Kemeny; Gretchen G Kimmick; Heidi D Klepin; Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Jacqueline M Lafky; Jennifer G Le-Rademacher; Daneng Li; Stuart M Lichtman; Ronald Maggiore; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Vicki A Morrison; Hyman B Muss; Michael O Ojelabi; Mina S Sedrak; Niveditha Subbiah; Virginia Sun; Susan Tuttle; Noam VanderWalde; Tanya Wildes; Melisa L Wong; Jennifer Woyach Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Clark DuMontier; Mina S Sedrak; Wee Kheng Soo; Cindy Kenis; Grant R Williams; Kristen Haase; Magnus Harneshaug; Hira Mian; Kah Poh Loh; Siri Rostoft; William Dale; Harvey Jay Cohen Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Cindy K Blair; David R Jacobs; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Harvey J Cohen; Miriam C Morey; Kim Robien; DeAnn Lazovich Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Supriya G Mohile; William Dale; Mark R Somerfield; Mara A Schonberg; Cynthia M Boyd; Peggy S Burhenn; Beverly Canin; Harvey Jay Cohen; Holly M Holmes; Judith O Hopkins; Michelle C Janelsins; Alok A Khorana; Heidi D Klepin; Stuart M Lichtman; Karen M Mustian; William P Tew; Arti Hurria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heidi D Klepin; Ellen Ritchie; Brittny Major-Elechi; Jennifer Le-Rademacher; Drew Seisler; Libby Storrick; Ben L Sanford; Guido Marcucci; Weiqiang Zhao; Susan A Geyer; Karla V Ballman; Bayard L Powell; Maria R Baer; Wendy Stock; Harvey Jay Cohen; Richard M Stone; Richard A Larson; Geoffrey L Uy Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Jennifer L Guida; Tim A Ahles; Daniel Belsky; Judith Campisi; Harvey Jay Cohen; James DeGregori; Rebecca Fuldner; Luigi Ferrucci; Lisa Gallicchio; Leonid Gavrilov; Natalia Gavrilova; Paige A Green; Chamelli Jhappan; Ronald Kohanski; Kevin Krull; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Kirsten K Ness; Ann O'Mara; Nathan Price; Jennifer Schrack; Stephanie Studenski; Olga Theou; Russell P Tracy; Arti Hurria Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506