Saloni Kumar, Jude K. des Bordes, Raia Khan, Rachel Jantea, Sunyang Fu, Min Ji Kwak, Nahid J. Rianon
{"title":"虚弱量表中患者自述疲劳与有效疲劳测量的比较","authors":"Saloni Kumar, Jude K. des Bordes, Raia Khan, Rachel Jantea, Sunyang Fu, Min Ji Kwak, Nahid J. Rianon","doi":"10.1111/jep.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>The FRAIL scale is a self-administered tool used to screen for frailty in clinical, community and long-term nursing settings. Patient's self-reporting of fatigue in the FRAIL scale may raise concerns of subjectivity and accuracy in frailty assessment.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To assess the performance of the patient-reported fatigue measure in the FRAIL scale in comparison to a validated fatigue measure, the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a cross-sectional study involving interviews and medical records review. Participants were 55 years and older seen at an ambulatory geriatric osteoporosis clinic. Participants were administered the FRAIL scale and the FSS over the phone or in person. Patient self-reported fatigue was derived from the first item (Are you fatigued?) on the FRAIL scale while the FSS provided a validated fatigue measure. Clinical and demographic data were obtained by review of medical records. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and AUC were estimated for patient self-reported fatigue from the FRAIL scale using the FSS as the gold standard. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate independent associations between the items on the FRAIL scale and fatigue assessed by the FSS, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We interviewed 126 participants, mean age was 77.2 ± 8.5 years, 91.3% (116) were female and 69.3% (88) were Caucasian/White. The prevalence of fatigue assessed by the FSS and the FRAIL scale were 24% and 34.6%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of patient-reported fatigue were 0.67, 0.75, 0.45, and 0.88, respectively. The AUC was 0.71. Depression (OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.14–10.25) and patient self-reported fatigue (OR = 4.74, 95% CI = 1.74–12.9) were significantly associated with FSS fatigue measure.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Patient-reported fatigue largely reflects validated measure of fatigue. Physicians should therefore be encouraged to use the FRAIL scale to assess frailty.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Patient Self-Reported Fatigue in the FRAIL Scale With a Validated Fatigue Measure\",\"authors\":\"Saloni Kumar, Jude K. des Bordes, Raia Khan, Rachel Jantea, Sunyang Fu, Min Ji Kwak, Nahid J. Rianon\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.70016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Rationale</h3>\\n \\n <p>The FRAIL scale is a self-administered tool used to screen for frailty in clinical, community and long-term nursing settings. Patient's self-reporting of fatigue in the FRAIL scale may raise concerns of subjectivity and accuracy in frailty assessment.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To assess the performance of the patient-reported fatigue measure in the FRAIL scale in comparison to a validated fatigue measure, the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a cross-sectional study involving interviews and medical records review. Participants were 55 years and older seen at an ambulatory geriatric osteoporosis clinic. Participants were administered the FRAIL scale and the FSS over the phone or in person. Patient self-reported fatigue was derived from the first item (Are you fatigued?) on the FRAIL scale while the FSS provided a validated fatigue measure. Clinical and demographic data were obtained by review of medical records. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and AUC were estimated for patient self-reported fatigue from the FRAIL scale using the FSS as the gold standard. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate independent associations between the items on the FRAIL scale and fatigue assessed by the FSS, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We interviewed 126 participants, mean age was 77.2 ± 8.5 years, 91.3% (116) were female and 69.3% (88) were Caucasian/White. The prevalence of fatigue assessed by the FSS and the FRAIL scale were 24% and 34.6%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of patient-reported fatigue were 0.67, 0.75, 0.45, and 0.88, respectively. The AUC was 0.71. Depression (OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.14–10.25) and patient self-reported fatigue (OR = 4.74, 95% CI = 1.74–12.9) were significantly associated with FSS fatigue measure.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patient-reported fatigue largely reflects validated measure of fatigue. Physicians should therefore be encouraged to use the FRAIL scale to assess frailty.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70016\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
虚弱量表是一种自我管理的工具,用于在临床、社区和长期护理环境中筛查虚弱。患者在虚弱量表中自我报告的疲劳可能会引起虚弱评估的主观性和准确性的关注。目的评估虚弱量表中患者报告的疲劳测量与有效的疲劳测量,疲劳严重程度量表(FSS)的性能。方法采用横断面研究,包括访谈和病历回顾。参与者年龄在55岁及以上,在老年骨质疏松症门诊就诊。参与者通过电话或亲自接受虚弱量表和FSS。患者自我报告的疲劳来自虚弱量表的第一项(你是否疲劳?),而FSS提供了一个经过验证的疲劳测量。临床和人口统计数据是通过审查医疗记录获得的。使用FSS作为金标准,对虚弱量表中患者自我报告的疲劳进行敏感性、特异性、阴性和阳性预测值以及AUC的估计。Logistic回归分析用于调查虚弱量表项目与FSS评估的疲劳之间的独立关联,并根据人口统计学和临床特征进行调整。结果126例参与者,平均年龄77.2±8.5岁,女性116例(91.3%),白种人88例(69.3%)。FSS和虚弱量表评估的疲劳患病率分别为24%和34.6%。患者报告疲劳的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为0.67、0.75、0.45和0.88。AUC为0.71。抑郁(OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.14-10.25)和患者自我报告的疲劳(OR = 4.74, 95% CI = 1.74-12.9)与FSS疲劳测量显著相关。结论患者报告的疲劳程度在很大程度上反映了有效的疲劳测量。因此,应该鼓励医生使用虚弱量表来评估虚弱程度。
A Comparison of Patient Self-Reported Fatigue in the FRAIL Scale With a Validated Fatigue Measure
Rationale
The FRAIL scale is a self-administered tool used to screen for frailty in clinical, community and long-term nursing settings. Patient's self-reporting of fatigue in the FRAIL scale may raise concerns of subjectivity and accuracy in frailty assessment.
Objective
To assess the performance of the patient-reported fatigue measure in the FRAIL scale in comparison to a validated fatigue measure, the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS).
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional study involving interviews and medical records review. Participants were 55 years and older seen at an ambulatory geriatric osteoporosis clinic. Participants were administered the FRAIL scale and the FSS over the phone or in person. Patient self-reported fatigue was derived from the first item (Are you fatigued?) on the FRAIL scale while the FSS provided a validated fatigue measure. Clinical and demographic data were obtained by review of medical records. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and AUC were estimated for patient self-reported fatigue from the FRAIL scale using the FSS as the gold standard. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate independent associations between the items on the FRAIL scale and fatigue assessed by the FSS, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.
Results
We interviewed 126 participants, mean age was 77.2 ± 8.5 years, 91.3% (116) were female and 69.3% (88) were Caucasian/White. The prevalence of fatigue assessed by the FSS and the FRAIL scale were 24% and 34.6%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of patient-reported fatigue were 0.67, 0.75, 0.45, and 0.88, respectively. The AUC was 0.71. Depression (OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.14–10.25) and patient self-reported fatigue (OR = 4.74, 95% CI = 1.74–12.9) were significantly associated with FSS fatigue measure.
Conclusion
Patient-reported fatigue largely reflects validated measure of fatigue. Physicians should therefore be encouraged to use the FRAIL scale to assess frailty.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.