Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of a Computer-Based Geriatric Assessment for Older Adults With Cancer

Author:

Hurria Arti1,Akiba Chie1,Kim Jerome1,Mitani Dale1,Loscalzo Matthew1,Katheria Vani1,Koczywas Marianna1,Pal Sumanta1,Chung Vincent1,Forman Stephen1,Nathwani Nitya1,Fakih Marwan1,Karanes Chatchada1,Lim Dean1,Popplewell Leslie1,Cohen Harvey1,Canin Beverly1,Cella David1,Ferrell Betty1,Goldstein Leanne1

Affiliation:

1. City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Breast Cancer Advocate, New York, NY; and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Abstract

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.

Publisher

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)

Subject

Health Policy,Oncology (nursing),Oncology

Cited by 89 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Geriatric assessment for the practicing clinician: The why, what, and how;CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians;2024-08-29

2. Shared decision-making support program for older patients with advanced cancer using a question prompt list and geriatric assessment: A pilot randomized controlled trial;Journal of Geriatric Oncology;2024-06

3. Geriatric Oncology: A 5-Year Strategic Plan;American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book;2024-06

4. Aging and cancer;Molecular Cancer;2024-05-18

5. Digital Forms for All: A Holistic Multimodal Large Language Model Agent for Health Data Entry;Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies;2024-05-13

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3