Screening and Assessment of Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Clinical Practice Guideline for Health Care Providers.

Autor:	Fisher MI; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, USA., Cohn JC; Good Shepherd Penn Partners, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA., Harrington SE; Exercise Science Department, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA., Lee JQ; Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, University of California at San Francisco/San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, USA., Malone D; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Physical therapy [Phys Ther] 2022 Sep 04; Vol. 102 (9).
DOI:	10.1093/ptj/pzac120
Abstrakt:	Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common side effect of cancer treatment. Regular surveillance is recommended, but few clinical practice guidelines transparently assess study bias, quality, and clinical utility in deriving recommendations of screening and assessment methods. The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide recommendations for the screening and assessment of CRF for health care professions treating individuals with cancer. Following best practices for development of a CPG using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Statement and Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) Guidelines Trust Scorecard, this CPG included a systematic search of the literature, quality assessment of included evidence, and stakeholder input from diverse health care fields to derive the final CPG. Ten screening and 15 assessment tools supported by 114 articles were reviewed. One screen (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life Questionnaire-30 Core Questionnaire) and 3 assessments (Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Fatigue-SF) received an A recommendation ("should be used in clinical practice"), and 1 screen and 5 assessments received a B recommendation ("may be used in clinical practice"). Health care providers have choice in determining appropriate screening and assessment tools to be used across the survivorship care continuum. The large number of tools available to screen for or assess CRF may result in a lack of comprehensive research evidence, leaving gaps in the body of evidence for measurement tools. More research into the responsiveness of these tools is needed in order to adopt their use as outcome measures. Impact: Health care providers should screen for and assess CRF using one of the tools recommended by this CPG. (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Physical Therapy Association.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu