International Survey on Frailty Assessment in Patients with Cancer.
app
cancer
e-health
frailty
older
survey
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2022
01 10 2022
Historique:
received:
31
03
2022
accepted:
17
06
2022
pubmed:
30
7
2022
medline:
5
10
2022
entrez:
29
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Frailty negatively affects the outcomes of patients with cancer, and its assessment might vary widely in the real world. The objective of this study was to explore awareness and use of frailty screening tools among the ONCOassist healthcare professionals (HCPs) users. We sent 2 emails with a cross-sectional 15-item survey in a 3-week interval between April and May 2021. Differences in the awareness and use of tools according to respondents' continents, country income, and job types were investigated. Seven hundred thirty-seven HCPs from 91 countries (81% physicians, 13% nurses, and 5% other HCPs) completed the survey. Three hundred and eighty-five (52%) reported assessing all or the majority of their patients; 518 (70%) at baseline and before starting a new treatment. Three hundred and four (43%) HCPs were aware of performance status (PS) scores only, 309 (42%) age/frailty/comorbidity (AFC) screening, and 102 (14%) chemotoxicity predictive tools. Five hundred and thirty-seven (73%) reported using tools; 423 (57%) just PS, 237 (32%) AFC, and 60 (8%) chemotoxicity ones. Reasons for tools non-use (485 responders) were awareness (70%), time constraints (28%), and uselessness (2%). There were significant differences in awareness and use of screening tools among different continents, country income, job types, and medical specialties (P < .001 for all comparisons). Among selected oncology HCPs, there is still a worldwide lack of knowledge and usage of frailty screening tools, which may differ according to their geography, country income, and education. Targeted initiatives to raise awareness and education are needed to implement frailty assessment in managing patients with cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Frailty negatively affects the outcomes of patients with cancer, and its assessment might vary widely in the real world. The objective of this study was to explore awareness and use of frailty screening tools among the ONCOassist healthcare professionals (HCPs) users.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We sent 2 emails with a cross-sectional 15-item survey in a 3-week interval between April and May 2021. Differences in the awareness and use of tools according to respondents' continents, country income, and job types were investigated.
RESULTS
Seven hundred thirty-seven HCPs from 91 countries (81% physicians, 13% nurses, and 5% other HCPs) completed the survey. Three hundred and eighty-five (52%) reported assessing all or the majority of their patients; 518 (70%) at baseline and before starting a new treatment. Three hundred and four (43%) HCPs were aware of performance status (PS) scores only, 309 (42%) age/frailty/comorbidity (AFC) screening, and 102 (14%) chemotoxicity predictive tools. Five hundred and thirty-seven (73%) reported using tools; 423 (57%) just PS, 237 (32%) AFC, and 60 (8%) chemotoxicity ones. Reasons for tools non-use (485 responders) were awareness (70%), time constraints (28%), and uselessness (2%). There were significant differences in awareness and use of screening tools among different continents, country income, job types, and medical specialties (P < .001 for all comparisons).
CONCLUSION
Among selected oncology HCPs, there is still a worldwide lack of knowledge and usage of frailty screening tools, which may differ according to their geography, country income, and education. Targeted initiatives to raise awareness and education are needed to implement frailty assessment in managing patients with cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35905085
pii: 6651953
doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyac133
pmc: PMC9526491
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e796-e803Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.
Références
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Sep;67(5):362-377
pubmed: 28731537
CMAJ. 2005 Aug 30;173(5):489-95
pubmed: 16129869
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 20;32(24):2595-603
pubmed: 25071125
J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 Mar;10(2):216-221
pubmed: 30041979
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Apr 01;7(4):616-627
pubmed: 33443547
JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198
pubmed: 28586821
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 10;34(20):2366-71
pubmed: 27185838
BMC Geriatr. 2019 Mar 18;19(1):86
pubmed: 30885132
J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 Mar;10(2):229-234
pubmed: 30420323
JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2017 Nov;1:1-7
pubmed: 30657404
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2005 Sep;55(3):241-52
pubmed: 16084735
Ann Oncol. 2015 Jun;26(6):1091-1101
pubmed: 25403592
CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jan;70(1):7-30
pubmed: 31912902
Ann Oncol. 2015 Feb;26(2):288-300
pubmed: 24936581
Curr Oncol Rep. 2019 Nov 25;21(12):107
pubmed: 31768759
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Nov 01;7(11):e214158
pubmed: 34591080
Lung. 2018 Aug;196(4):463-468
pubmed: 29651598
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Feb 3;3:14
pubmed: 32047860
JCO Oncol Pract. 2021 Jun;17(6):336-344
pubmed: 33064058
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Jun;126:95-104
pubmed: 31029270
Ann Ig. 2018 Mar-Apr;30(2):128-139
pubmed: 29465150
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 May 03;7(5):e13555
pubmed: 31066710
Ann Hematol. 2014 Jun;93(6):1031-40
pubmed: 24488257
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 Mar;56(3):M146-56
pubmed: 11253156
J Nutr Health Aging. 2008 Jan;12(1):29-37
pubmed: 18165842
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1998 Jan;53(1):S9-16
pubmed: 9469175
Lancet. 2021 Nov 20;398(10314):1894-1904
pubmed: 34741815
J Geriatr Oncol. 2019 Jul;10(4):659-665
pubmed: 30952518
J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Nov;47(11):1245-51
pubmed: 7722560
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Feb;26(2):451-460
pubmed: 28776149
J Geriatr Oncol. 2020 Sep;11(7):1138-1144
pubmed: 32576520