Cargando…

Exploring the Use of Two Brief Fatigue Screening Tools in Cancer Outpatient Clinics

PURPOSE: Cancer fatigue guidelines recommend routine fatigue screening, with further assessment for people reporting moderate to severe fatigue. There is neither a gold-standard, nor a broadly accepted screening method, and knowledge about the impact of screening on care processes is limited. This s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pearson, Elizabeth J., Drosdowsky, Allison, Edbrooke, Lara, Denehy, Linda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7871054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33522317
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534735420983443
_version_ 1783648936929525760
author Pearson, Elizabeth J.
Drosdowsky, Allison
Edbrooke, Lara
Denehy, Linda
author_facet Pearson, Elizabeth J.
Drosdowsky, Allison
Edbrooke, Lara
Denehy, Linda
author_sort Pearson, Elizabeth J.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Cancer fatigue guidelines recommend routine fatigue screening, with further assessment for people reporting moderate to severe fatigue. There is neither a gold-standard, nor a broadly accepted screening method, and knowledge about the impact of screening on care processes is limited. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of 2 fatigue screening methods and current clinical practice in cancer outpatient clinics. METHODS: Hospital outpatients attending cancer clinics during 1 week completed a five-item survey: a numeric scale for current tiredness, 2 categorical pictorial scales rating tiredness last week and the impact of fatigue (Fatigue Pictogram), screening tool preference and help needed for survey completion. Participant demographics and fatigue documentation by clinical staff for that appointment were extracted from medical records. Analyses used descriptive statistics. Groups were compared using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: Over 75% of participants rated their fatigue consistently as mild or significant on both screening tools. Of 1709 eligible outpatients, 533 (31%) completed the survey. Records were audited for 430 (81%) identifiable participants. Over half of the participants reported moderate or severe tiredness either “now” (237, 57%) and/or “last week” (226, 53%). Clinician documentation of fatigue seldom matched self-reports. Fatigue was rated as severe by 103 participants (24%), yet was noted in only 21 (20%) of these individuals’ clinical notes. Both screening tools were equally preferred. CONCLUSION: The numeric rating scale and Fatigue Pictogram are equally applicable for screening fatigue in cancer outpatient care. There is a high prevalence of clinically significant fatigue in a hospital outpatient setting that is not documented. Adequate care pathways for further management should be established alongside fatigue screening.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7871054
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78710542021-02-19 Exploring the Use of Two Brief Fatigue Screening Tools in Cancer Outpatient Clinics Pearson, Elizabeth J. Drosdowsky, Allison Edbrooke, Lara Denehy, Linda Integr Cancer Ther Fatigue, Treatment Side Effects, and Rehabilitation PURPOSE: Cancer fatigue guidelines recommend routine fatigue screening, with further assessment for people reporting moderate to severe fatigue. There is neither a gold-standard, nor a broadly accepted screening method, and knowledge about the impact of screening on care processes is limited. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of 2 fatigue screening methods and current clinical practice in cancer outpatient clinics. METHODS: Hospital outpatients attending cancer clinics during 1 week completed a five-item survey: a numeric scale for current tiredness, 2 categorical pictorial scales rating tiredness last week and the impact of fatigue (Fatigue Pictogram), screening tool preference and help needed for survey completion. Participant demographics and fatigue documentation by clinical staff for that appointment were extracted from medical records. Analyses used descriptive statistics. Groups were compared using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: Over 75% of participants rated their fatigue consistently as mild or significant on both screening tools. Of 1709 eligible outpatients, 533 (31%) completed the survey. Records were audited for 430 (81%) identifiable participants. Over half of the participants reported moderate or severe tiredness either “now” (237, 57%) and/or “last week” (226, 53%). Clinician documentation of fatigue seldom matched self-reports. Fatigue was rated as severe by 103 participants (24%), yet was noted in only 21 (20%) of these individuals’ clinical notes. Both screening tools were equally preferred. CONCLUSION: The numeric rating scale and Fatigue Pictogram are equally applicable for screening fatigue in cancer outpatient care. There is a high prevalence of clinically significant fatigue in a hospital outpatient setting that is not documented. Adequate care pathways for further management should be established alongside fatigue screening. SAGE Publications 2021-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7871054/ /pubmed/33522317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534735420983443 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Fatigue, Treatment Side Effects, and Rehabilitation
Pearson, Elizabeth J.
Drosdowsky, Allison
Edbrooke, Lara
Denehy, Linda
Exploring the Use of Two Brief Fatigue Screening Tools in Cancer Outpatient Clinics
title Exploring the Use of Two Brief Fatigue Screening Tools in Cancer Outpatient Clinics
title_full Exploring the Use of Two Brief Fatigue Screening Tools in Cancer Outpatient Clinics
title_fullStr Exploring the Use of Two Brief Fatigue Screening Tools in Cancer Outpatient Clinics
title_full_unstemmed Exploring the Use of Two Brief Fatigue Screening Tools in Cancer Outpatient Clinics
title_short Exploring the Use of Two Brief Fatigue Screening Tools in Cancer Outpatient Clinics
title_sort exploring the use of two brief fatigue screening tools in cancer outpatient clinics
topic Fatigue, Treatment Side Effects, and Rehabilitation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7871054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33522317
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534735420983443
work_keys_str_mv AT pearsonelizabethj exploringtheuseoftwobrieffatiguescreeningtoolsincanceroutpatientclinics
AT drosdowskyallison exploringtheuseoftwobrieffatiguescreeningtoolsincanceroutpatientclinics
AT edbrookelara exploringtheuseoftwobrieffatiguescreeningtoolsincanceroutpatientclinics
AT denehylinda exploringtheuseoftwobrieffatiguescreeningtoolsincanceroutpatientclinics