Acceptability and feasibility of cognitive assessments with adults with primary brain cancer and brain metastasis: A systematic review.

IF 2.4 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neuro-oncology practice Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1093/nop/npac097
Melissa A Carlson, Elizabeth A Fradgley, Della Yates, Sarah Morris, Jordan Tait, Christine L Paul
{"title":"Acceptability and feasibility of cognitive assessments with adults with primary brain cancer and brain metastasis: A systematic review.","authors":"Melissa A Carlson,&nbsp;Elizabeth A Fradgley,&nbsp;Della Yates,&nbsp;Sarah Morris,&nbsp;Jordan Tait,&nbsp;Christine L Paul","doi":"10.1093/nop/npac097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Routine cognitive assessment for adults with brain cancers is seldom completed but vital for guiding daily living, maintaining quality of life, or supporting patients and families. This study aims to identify cognitive assessments which are pragmatic and acceptable for use in clinical settings. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched to identify studies published in English between 1990 and 2021. Publications were independently screened by two coders and included if they: (1) were peer-reviewed; (2) reported original data relating to adult primary brain tumor or brain metastases; (3) used objective or subjective assessments; (4) reported assessment acceptability or feasibility. The Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale was used. Consent, assessment commencement and completion, and study completion were extracted along with author-reported acceptability and feasibility data. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021234794. Across 27 studies, 21 cognitive assessments had been assessed for feasibility and acceptability; 15 were objective assessments. Acceptability data were limited and heterogeneous, particularly consent (not reported in 23 studies), assessment commencement (not reported in 19 studies), and assessment completion (not reported in 21 studies). Reasons for non-completion could be grouped into patient-factors, assessment-factors, clinician-factors, and system-factors. The three cognitive assessments with the most acceptability and feasibility data reported were the MMSE, MoCA, and NIHTB-CB. Further acceptability and feasibility data are needed including consent, commencement and completion rates. Cost, length, time, and assessor burden are needed for the MMSE, MoCA, and NIHTB-CB, along with potentially new computerized assessments suited for busy clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":19234,"journal":{"name":"Neuro-oncology practice","volume":"10 3","pages":"219-237"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10180383/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuro-oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npac097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Routine cognitive assessment for adults with brain cancers is seldom completed but vital for guiding daily living, maintaining quality of life, or supporting patients and families. This study aims to identify cognitive assessments which are pragmatic and acceptable for use in clinical settings. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched to identify studies published in English between 1990 and 2021. Publications were independently screened by two coders and included if they: (1) were peer-reviewed; (2) reported original data relating to adult primary brain tumor or brain metastases; (3) used objective or subjective assessments; (4) reported assessment acceptability or feasibility. The Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale was used. Consent, assessment commencement and completion, and study completion were extracted along with author-reported acceptability and feasibility data. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021234794. Across 27 studies, 21 cognitive assessments had been assessed for feasibility and acceptability; 15 were objective assessments. Acceptability data were limited and heterogeneous, particularly consent (not reported in 23 studies), assessment commencement (not reported in 19 studies), and assessment completion (not reported in 21 studies). Reasons for non-completion could be grouped into patient-factors, assessment-factors, clinician-factors, and system-factors. The three cognitive assessments with the most acceptability and feasibility data reported were the MMSE, MoCA, and NIHTB-CB. Further acceptability and feasibility data are needed including consent, commencement and completion rates. Cost, length, time, and assessor burden are needed for the MMSE, MoCA, and NIHTB-CB, along with potentially new computerized assessments suited for busy clinical settings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成人原发性脑癌和脑转移患者认知评估的可接受性和可行性:一项系统综述。
成人脑癌患者的常规认知评估很少完成,但对指导日常生活、维持生活质量或支持患者和家属至关重要。本研究旨在确定认知评估是实用的和可接受的,用于临床设置。检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO、CINAHL和Cochrane,以确定1990年至2021年间用英语发表的研究。出版物由两名编码员独立筛选,如果它们:(1)经过同行评审;(2)与成人原发性脑肿瘤或脑转移相关的原始报告数据;(三)采用客观或者主观评价;(四)报告的评估可接受性或者可行性。采用心理测量与语用证据评定量表。同意、评估开始和完成、研究完成以及作者报告的可接受性和可行性数据被提取出来。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42021234794。在27项研究中,21项认知评估评估了可行性和可接受性;15项为客观评价。可接受性数据有限且异质性,特别是同意(23项研究未报告)、评估开始(19项研究未报告)和评估完成(21项研究未报告)。未完成的原因可分为患者因素、评估因素、临床因素和系统因素。MMSE、MoCA和NIHTB-CB是三种最具可接受性和可行性数据的认知评估。需要进一步的可接受性和可行性数据,包括同意率、开工率和完成率。MMSE、MoCA和NIHTB-CB需要成本、长度、时间和评估人员负担,以及适合繁忙临床环境的潜在新计算机化评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuro-oncology practice
Neuro-oncology practice CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
92
期刊介绍: Neuro-Oncology Practice focuses on the clinical aspects of the subspecialty for practicing clinicians and healthcare specialists from a variety of disciplines including physicians, nurses, physical/occupational therapists, neuropsychologists, and palliative care specialists, who have focused their careers on clinical patient care and who want to apply the latest treatment advances to their practice. These include: Applying new trial results to improve standards of patient care Translating scientific advances such as tumor molecular profiling and advanced imaging into clinical treatment decision making and personalized brain tumor therapies Raising awareness of basic, translational and clinical research in areas of symptom management, survivorship, neurocognitive function, end of life issues and caregiving
期刊最新文献
Erratum to: Glioma resource outreach with support: A program to identify and initiate supportive care interventions for unmet needs among adult lower-grade glioma patients. Well-intentioned is not always beneficial: Why we should question prescription habits. Long-term effects on fertility after central nervous system cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Socioeconomic driven disparities in neuro-oncology. Palliative care services in neuro-oncology: Mind the gap.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1