Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of a Computer-Based Geriatric Assessment for Older Adults With Cancer
| Autor: | Leanne Goldstein, Marwan Fakih, Leslie Popplewell, Chatchada Karanes, Sumanta Kumar Pal, Arti Hurria, Vincent Chung, Nitya Nathwani, Harvey J. Cohen, Matthew Loscalzo, Vani Katheria, Dean Lim, Jerome H. Kim, Marianna Koczywas, Beverly Canin, Dale Mitani, Betty Ferrell, Stephen J. Forman, David Cella, Chie Akiba |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2016 |
| Předmět: |
Male
medicine.medical_specialty Electronic data capture Original Contributions MEDLINE Session (web analytics) law.invention 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Randomized controlled trial law Neoplasms Surveys and Questionnaires Hematologic malignancy Medicine Humans 030212 general & internal medicine Geriatric Assessment Aged Aged 80 and over Oncology (nursing) business.industry Health Policy Computer based Reproducibility of Results Geriatric assessment RELIABILITY VALIDITY Oncology 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Physical therapy Feasibility Studies Female business |
| Zdroj: | Journal of oncology practice. 12(12) |
| ISSN: | 1935-469X |
| Popis: | 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. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|