Evaluation of change in dietitians’ perceived comprehensibility and difficulty of the Patient‐Generated Subjective Global Assessment (<scp>PG</scp>‐<scp>SGA</scp>) after a single training in the use of the instrument

Sealy, Martine; Schans, Cees P. van der; Roodenburg, Jan; Jager‐Wittenaar, Harriët

doi:10.1111/jhn.12491

Cited by 17 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the current study supports the recommendation to train HCPs in the use of the PG-SGA prior to using it in daily practice [16]. A study in Dutch dietitians has demonstrated that already a full day training is very effective in improving both comprehensibility and difficulty of the PG-SGA [22].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Linguistic and content validation of the translated and culturally adapted PG-SGA, as perceived by Norwegian cancer patients and healthcare professionals

Henriksen

Thoresen

Fjøseide

et al. 2020

Clinical Nutrition ESPEN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background & aims: The Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA©) is a validated nutritional screening, assessment, monitoring, and triage tool. When translated to other languages, the questions and answering items need to be conceptually, semantically, and operationally equivalent to the original tool. In this study, we aimed to assess linguistic and content validity of the PG-SGA translated and culturally adapted for the Norwegian setting, as perceived by Norwegian cancer patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: We have translated and culturally adapted the original PG-SGA for the Norwegian setting, in concordance with the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Cancer patients and HCPs, including nurses, dietitians and physicians, were invited to participate. Comprehensibility and difficulty were assessed by patients for the patient component (PG-SGA Short Form), and by HCPs for the professional component. Content validity was assessed for the full PG-SGA by HCPs only. The data were collected by a questionnaire and evaluations were operationalized by a 4-point scale. Item and scale indices were calculated for comprehensibility (Item CI, Scale CI), difficulty (Item DI, Scale DI) and content validity (Item CVI, Scale CVI). Results: Fifty-one cancer patients and 92 HCPs participated in the study. The patients perceived comprehensibility and difficulty of the Norwegian PG-SGA Short Form as excellent (Scale CI ¼ 0.99 and DI ¼ 0.97). However, HCPs perceived comprehensibility and difficulty of the professional component as below acceptable (Scale CI ¼ 0.78 and DI ¼ 0.66), and the physical exam was being rated as the most difficult part (Item DI 0.26 to 0.65). Content validity for the full Norwegian PG-SGA was considered excellent (Scale CVI ¼ 0.99) by the HCPs. Conclusion: The patient component of PG-SGA was considered clear and easy to complete, and the full Norwegian PG-SGA was considered as relevant by HCPs. In the final Norwegian PG-SGA, changes have been made to improve comprehensibility of the professional component. To improve perceived difficulty of completing the professional component, training of professionals is indicated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Linguistic and content validation of the translated and culturally adapted PG-SGA, as perceived by Norwegian cancer patients and healthcare professionals

Henriksen

Thoresen

Fjøseide

et al. 2020

Clinical Nutrition ESPEN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Education most appropriately needs to target the physical examination from a nutrition or body composition perspective (Worksheet 4) and metabolic demands associated with fever and catabolic steroids (Worksheet 3). Previous research has found that the comprehension of the individual items of physical examination increased from 0.41 to 0.50 pretraining to 0.91e0.97 post-training after a single session of training [33]. Additionally, the level of difficulty improved from 0.13 to 0.17 pre-training to 0.53e0.71 post-training (p < 0.001), indicating that comprehension and ease of use significantly improved after receiving the one single session of training with the PG-SGA [33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Especially HCPs who are not experienced in assessing a subjective evaluation of body composition in the context of nutritional status found this section to be the most difficult. However, both comprehensibility and difficulty improve with training [33]. The major limitation of the study is that study population was limited to cancer patients only, which can impact the generalizability of use beyond cancer patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation and cultural adaptation of the scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA©)

Tobberup

Jager‐Wittenaar

Sørensen

et al. 2022

Clinical Nutrition ESPEN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aim: The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA©) is a globally used malnutrition screening, assessment, triage and monitoring tool. The aim of this study was to perform a linguistic and content validation of the translated and culturally adapted version of the PG-SGA for the Danish setting. Method: The study was conducted according to the International Society of Pharmaeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Principles of Good Practice for the Translational and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures. Cancer patients (n ¼ 121) and healthcare professionals (HCPs, n ¼ 80) participated in the cognitive debriefing. A questionnaire was used in the cognitive debriefing in which comprehensibility, difficulty, and content validity (relevance) were quantified by a 4point scale. Item and scale indices were calculated using the average item ratings divided by the number of respondents for content validity (Item-CVI, Scale-CVI), comprehensibility (Item-CI, Scale-CI) and difficulty (Item-DI, Scale-DI). As pre-defined, item indices <0.78 required further analysis of the item, and scale indices 0.90 were defined as excellent and 0.80e0.89 as acceptable. Results: The patient component of the PG-SGA was rated as excellent content validity (Scale-CVI ¼ 0.95) by HCPs and easy to comprehend (Scale-CI ¼ 0.97) and use (Scale-DI ¼ 0.92) by patients. The professional component of the PG-SGA was rated as acceptable content validity (Scale-CVI ¼ 0.80), but below acceptable for comprehension (Scale-CI ¼ 0.71) and difficulty (Scale-DI ¼ 0.69). The physical exam was rated the least comprehensible Item-CI ¼ 0.51e0.70) and most difficult (Item-DI ¼ 0.33e0.063). Conclusion:The PG-SGA was successfully translated and culturally adapted to the Danish setting. Patients found it easy to understand and to complete. Except for the physical exam, HCPs rated the PG-SGA as relevant, comprehensive, and easy to use. Training of HCPs is recommended before implementing the tool into clinical practise.

show abstract

“…Briefly, the PG-SGA assessment was carried out by either registered clinical dietitians or trained master students in clinical nutrition in accordance with the guidelines [30]. All personnel underwent training in the PG-SGA procedure, as training has been shown to increase comprehensibility [31]. Permission for use was obtained by the copyright holder of the instrument.…”

Section: The Pg-sgamentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement between GLIM and PG-SGA for diagnosis of malnutrition depends on the screening tool used in GLIM

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background & aim: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) has suggested a process for the diagnosis of malnutrition. The process consists of applying an existing screening tool for malnutrition screening, followed by malnutrition diagnostics, and finally categorization of malnutrition severity (moderate or severe) according to specific GLIM criteria. However, it is not known how well the GLIM process agrees with other diagnostic tools used in the current clinical practice. The aim of this study was to validate the GLIM process against the Patient Generated-Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) when different screening tools were applied in the screening step of the GLIM process. Methods: Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients from the ongoing CRC-NORDIET study were included. For the GLIM process, the patients were first screened for malnutrition using either 1) Nutritional risk screening, first 4 questions (NRS-2002-4Q), 2) Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), 3) Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) or 4) the PG-SGA short form (PG-SGA-SF). The GLIM malnutrition diagnosis was then based on combining the result from each of the screening methods with the etiological and phenotypic GLIM-criteria including weight loss, BMI and fat free mass. In parallel, the patients were diagnosed using the PG-SGA methodology categorizing the patients into either A: well nourished, B: moderately malnourished or C: severely malnourished. The four different GLIM based diagnoses were then validated against the diagnosis obtained by the PG-SGA tool. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated to evaluate validity. Results: In total, 426 patients were included (mean age: 66, ±8 years) at a mean time of 166 (±56) days after surgery. The GLIM diagnosis based on the four different screening tools identified 10e24% of the patients to be malnourished, of which 3e8% were severely malnourished. The PG-SGA method categorized 15% as moderately malnourished (PG-SGA: category B) and no patients as severely malnourished (PG-SGA: category C). The agreement between the PG-SGA and GLIM process was in general low, but differed according to the tools: PG-SGA SF (sensitivity 47%, PPV 71%), MST (sensitivity 56%, PPV 47%), NRS-2002-4Q (sensitivity 63%, PPV 53%) and MUST (sensitivity 53%, PPV 34%). Conclusion:In this cross-sectional study of patients with CRC, the concordance between the GLIMcriteria and PG-SGA depended on the screening tool used in the GLIM process. Malnutrition frequency based on the GLIM process schould be reported with and without the use of a screening tool.

show abstract

Evaluation of change in dietitians’ perceived comprehensibility and difficulty of the Patient‐Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG‐SGA) after a single training in the use of the instrument

Cited by 17 publications

References 22 publications

Linguistic and content validation of the translated and culturally adapted PG-SGA, as perceived by Norwegian cancer patients and healthcare professionals

Linguistic and content validation of the translated and culturally adapted PG-SGA, as perceived by Norwegian cancer patients and healthcare professionals

Translation and cultural adaptation of the scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA©)

Agreement between GLIM and PG-SGA for diagnosis of malnutrition depends on the screening tool used in GLIM

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About