Putting Guidelines Into Practice: Is Frailty Measurement at the Time of Kidney Transplant Eligibility Assessment Valid, Feasible, and Acceptable to Patients?
Shavini Weerasekera, Natasha Reid, Adrienne Young, Ryan Homes, Aaron Sia, Fiona Giddens, Ross S Francis, Ruth E Hubbard, Emily H Gordon
{"title":"Putting Guidelines Into Practice: Is Frailty Measurement at the Time of Kidney Transplant Eligibility Assessment Valid, Feasible, and Acceptable to Patients?","authors":"Shavini Weerasekera, Natasha Reid, Adrienne Young, Ryan Homes, Aaron Sia, Fiona Giddens, Ross S Francis, Ruth E Hubbard, Emily H Gordon","doi":"10.1097/TXD.0000000000001548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical Practice Guidelines suggest that frailty be measured during kidney transplant eligibility assessments. Yet it is not known how frailty is best assessed in this setting or whether its assessment is acceptable to patients. We aimed to examine the construct validity and feasibility of Frailty Index (FI) assessment among patients attending a kidney transplant assessment clinic and to explore patients' perspectives on frailty and the acceptability of its routine assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 58-item FI was calculated for 147 clinic patients. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a subgroup of 29 patients. The FI was validated against normative FI characteristics (mean, distribution, limit), age, and the Estimated Post-Transplant Survival Score. Feasibility was assessed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean FI was 0.23 (±0.10, normal distribution, limit 0.53). FI increased with age and Estimated Post-Transplant Survival score. The FI was completed for 62.8% of eligible patients (147/234). The median completion time was 10 min, and completion rate (with no missing data) was 100%. Four themes were identified: perceptions of frailty, acceptability, perceived benefits, and risks of frailty measurement. Patients linked frailty with age and adverse outcomes, and most did not consider themselves frail. Patients reported that the FI was quick, simple, and efficient. They felt that frailty assessment is relevant to transplant eligibility and should be used to address potentially reversible factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The FI demonstrated construct validity and was feasible and acceptable in this clinic setting. The challenge is ensuring that routine assessments lead to better care.</p>","PeriodicalId":23225,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Direct","volume":"9 11","pages":"e1548"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3b/df/txd-9-e1548.PMC10581598.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Direct","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001548","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPLANTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Clinical Practice Guidelines suggest that frailty be measured during kidney transplant eligibility assessments. Yet it is not known how frailty is best assessed in this setting or whether its assessment is acceptable to patients. We aimed to examine the construct validity and feasibility of Frailty Index (FI) assessment among patients attending a kidney transplant assessment clinic and to explore patients' perspectives on frailty and the acceptability of its routine assessment.
Methods: A 58-item FI was calculated for 147 clinic patients. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a subgroup of 29 patients. The FI was validated against normative FI characteristics (mean, distribution, limit), age, and the Estimated Post-Transplant Survival Score. Feasibility was assessed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Results: The mean FI was 0.23 (±0.10, normal distribution, limit 0.53). FI increased with age and Estimated Post-Transplant Survival score. The FI was completed for 62.8% of eligible patients (147/234). The median completion time was 10 min, and completion rate (with no missing data) was 100%. Four themes were identified: perceptions of frailty, acceptability, perceived benefits, and risks of frailty measurement. Patients linked frailty with age and adverse outcomes, and most did not consider themselves frail. Patients reported that the FI was quick, simple, and efficient. They felt that frailty assessment is relevant to transplant eligibility and should be used to address potentially reversible factors.
Conclusions: The FI demonstrated construct validity and was feasible and acceptable in this clinic setting. The challenge is ensuring that routine assessments lead to better care.