Use of Single-Item Self-Rated Health Measure to Identify Frailty and Geriatric Assessment-Identified Impairments Among Older Adults with Cancer

Giri, Smith; Mir, Nabiel; Al‐Obaidi, Mustafa; Clark, Deanna; Kenzik, Kelly; McDonald, Andrew M.; Young‐Smith, Crystal; Paluri, Ravi Kumar; Nandagopal, Lakshmin; Gbolahan, Olumide B.; Nyrop, Kirsten A.; Muss, Hyman B.; Pergolotti, Mackenzi; Bhatia, Smita; Williams, Grant R.

doi:10.1093/oncolo/oyab020

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reason may be that the strong sedative effect causes a lack of subjective motivation and energy, which leads to laziness, limited activity, and frailty ( 39 ). Self-reported health is a widely used health criterion to predict and identify frailty ( 40 , 41 ). The concept of frailty self-perception can explain the relationship between self-rated health status and frailty.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frailty among inpatients with Schizophrenia: Status, influencing factors, and their correlation with quality of life

Yang

Hou

et al. 2023

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand frailty and its influencing factors in inpatients with Schizophrenia in Chengdu and to explore correlations between frailty and quality of life.MethodsFrom May to July 2022, inpatients with Schizophrenia were surveyed using a general information questionnaire, frailty phenotype (FP) scoring, the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the SZ Quality of Life Scale (SQLS). Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess factors influencing frailty and multivariate linear regression was conducted to assess the factors influencing quality of life.ResultsA total of 556 hospitalized patients with Schizophrenia were included and divided into three groups according to the degree of frailty, of which 153 cases (27.5%) were without frailty, 348 cases (62.6%) were in early frailty, and 55 cases (9.9%) were in frailty. Univariate analysis of age, history of falls during hospitalization, polypharmacy, compulsory treatment during hospitalization, self-reported health status, activity level, cognitive impairment, depressive symptoms, “psychology and society,” “motivation and energy” and “symptoms and side-effects” showed statistically significant differences between the groups. Multinomial logistic regression showed that age, BMI, self-reported health, activity, cognitive impairment, motivation and energy, and symptoms and side-effects were influencing factors for frailty in hospitalized patients with Schizophrenia. Correlation analysis shows that frailty score positively correlated with SQLS score.ConclusionWe found that frailty was prevalent and that frailty was positively correlated with SQLS scores in inpatients with Schizophrenia. To effectively manage the frailty of hospitalized patients with Schizophrenia, medical staff should pay attention to its influencing factors and quality of life.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frailty among inpatients with Schizophrenia: Status, influencing factors, and their correlation with quality of life

Yang

Hou

et al. 2023

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants were required to have nonmissing data for at least 30 items in order to compute a valid frailty score and were categorized as robust (0–0.2), prefrail (0.2–0.35), and frail (>0.35), as previously described 24 . Our team has previously shown that the CARE frailty index predicts functional decline, severe chemotherapy toxicities, and survival among older adults; 25 similarly constructed frailty indices have shown comparable results 12–15,26 . See Table S1 for a full list of the CARE frailty index items.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of unmet basic resource needs with frailty and quality of life among older adults with cancer—Results from the CARE registry

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Basic resource needs related to transportation, housing, food, and medications are important social determinants of health and modifiable indicators of poverty, but their role in modifying the risk of frailty and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) remains unknown. The goal of our study was to examine the prevalence of unmet basic needs and their association with frailty and HRQoL in a cohort of older adults with cancer. Methods The CARE registry prospectively enrolls older adults (≥60 years) with cancer. Assessments of transportation, housing, and material hardship were added to the CARE tool in 8/2020. The 44‐item CARE Frailty Index was used to define frailty, and subdomains of physical and mental HRQoL were assessed using the PROMIS® 10‐global. Multivariable analysis examined the association between unmet needs with frailty and HRQoL subdomains, adjusting for covariates. Results The cohort included 494 participants. Median age of 69 years, 63.6% were male and 20.2% were Non‐Hispanic (NH) Black. Unmet basic needs were reported in 17.8% (transportation 11.5%, housing 2.8%, and material hardship 7.5%). Those with unmet needs were more often NH Black (33.0% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.006) and less educated (

show abstract

“…Fifteen studies were speci cally conducted in the medical oncology setting, 19,20,23,24,[26][27][28][29][33][34][35]38,43,51,54 eight studies in surgical oncology, 41,42,45,49,52,53,55,56 and the remainder were either mixed or not speci ed. 17,18,22,25,[30][31][32]36,37,39,40,44,[46][47][48]50,57,58 Fourteen studies included a range of cancers and the rest focused on individual cancer types.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17,18,22,25,[30][31][32]36,37,39,40,44,[46][47][48]50,57,58 Fourteen studies included a range of cancers and the rest focused on individual cancer types. 20,[22][23][24][25]30,32,36,39,40,44,46,47,50,57,58 There were 10 studies of breast cancer, [17][18][19][26][27][28][29]33,37,56 of which six studies were different secondary analyses of the same prospective clinical trial. 19,26,27,33 Similarly, two 34,51 of the ve lung cancer studies utilised the same retrospective database, 34,35,…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…52 INSERT FIGURE 1 INSERT TABLE 1 Frailty Index Categories In 22 studies (55%) an FI ≥ 0.35 was used to categorise people as frail and an FI between 0.20 and 0.35 categorised people as prefrail. [17][18][19][20][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]57,58 Thirteen of the 22 studies referenced one of three oncology studies as rationale for their FI categorisation. 20,25,33 20 published four years later, referenced Sheppard et al and reported that frailty predicted an increased likelihood of hospitalisation and treatment discontinuation in older adults commencing chemotherapy.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How frail is frail in oncology studies? A scoping review

Fletcher

Logan

Reid

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims:The frailty index (FI) is one way in which frailty can be quantified. While it is measured as a continuous variable, various cut-off points have been used to categorise older adults as frail or non-frail, and these have largely been validated in the acute care or community settings for older adults without cancer. This study aimed to explore which FI categories have been applied to older adults with cancer and to determine why these categories were selected by study authors.Methods:This scoping review searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for studies which measured and categorised an FI in adults with cancer. Of the 1165 screened, 40 were eligible for inclusion. Data including oncological setting, FI categories, and the references or rationale for categorisation were extract and analysed.Results:The FI score used to categorise participants as frail ranged from 0.06 to 0.35, with 0.35 being the most frequently used, followed by 0.25 and 0.20. The rationale for FI categories was provided in most studies but was not always relevant. Three of the included studies using an FI > 0.35 to define frailty were frequently referenced as the rationale for subsequent studies, however the original rationale for this categorisation was unclear. Few studies sought to determine or validate optimum FI categorises in this population.Conclusion:There is significant variability in how studies have categorised the FI in older adults with cancer. An FI ≥ 0.35 to categorise frailty was used most frequently, however an FI in this range has often represented at least moderate to severe frailty in other studies. These findings contrast with a scoping review of highly cited studies categorising FI in older adults without cancer, where an FI ≥ 0.25 was most common. Maintaining the FI as a continuous variable is likely to be beneficial until further validation studies determine optimum FI categories in this population. Disparities in how the FI has been categorised, and indeed how older adults have been labelled as ‘frail’, limits our ability to synthesise results and to understand the impact of frailty in cancer care.

show abstract

Use of Single-Item Self-Rated Health Measure to Identify Frailty and Geriatric Assessment-Identified Impairments Among Older Adults with Cancer

Cited by 16 publications

References 61 publications

Frailty among inpatients with Schizophrenia: Status, influencing factors, and their correlation with quality of life

Frailty among inpatients with Schizophrenia: Status, influencing factors, and their correlation with quality of life

Association of unmet basic resource needs with frailty and quality of life among older adults with cancer—Results from the CARE registry

How frail is frail in oncology studies? A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About