A digital self-reported G8 screening tool: A comparison study

Trina Arifin, W. Ong, Yu Ling Juliana Chia, Agnes Lai Yin Chow, Anupama Roy Chowdhury, Johan Chan, Wei Chong Tan, M. B. Ramalingam, T. Rajasekaran, Tira J Tan, L. Krishna, O. Lai, S. Chen, R. Kanesvaran
{"title":"A digital self-reported G8 screening tool: A comparison study","authors":"Trina Arifin, W. Ong, Yu Ling Juliana Chia, Agnes Lai Yin Chow, Anupama Roy Chowdhury, Johan Chan, Wei Chong Tan, M. B. Ramalingam, T. Rajasekaran, Tira J Tan, L. Krishna, O. Lai, S. Chen, R. Kanesvaran","doi":"10.1177/20101058231224488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Geriatric assessment (GA) has been shown to be pivotal to the prognosis of elderly cancer patients. A G8 screening tool could act as a potential surrogate to identify patients who would benefit from further GA in a busy oncology clinic and a digital version would allow for a wider application. To develop a digital self-reported version of G8, and to compare its outcomes with in-person G8 administered by a healthcare professional. A total of 483 cancer patients aged 70 years and older who received an in-person G8 assessment at the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS) clinic, and another 544 who completed the digital self-reported G8 were analysed. Total G8 score ≤14 was defined as positive screen. Response rate of the digital self-reported G8 was 50%. Median G8 total score was lower among online screeners than in-person screeners (11 vs 12.5, p < 0.001). The odds of a G8 positive screen among online screeners was higher than that of in-person screeners on multivariable logistic regression analysis (odds ratio = 1.56, 95% CI 1.08-2.26). Some 20 in-person screeners had also completed the digital self-reported G8, and the agreement between their in-person and online G8 total scores was high (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.798, 95% CI 0.635-0.962). A digital self-reported G8 is feasible. However, given the higher positive screen rate among the online screeners, replacement of the in-person G8 with the digital self-reported G8 should be implemented only after more conclusive evidence on the agreement between in-person and online G8 score is available.","PeriodicalId":509768,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare","volume":"59 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20101058231224488","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Geriatric assessment (GA) has been shown to be pivotal to the prognosis of elderly cancer patients. A G8 screening tool could act as a potential surrogate to identify patients who would benefit from further GA in a busy oncology clinic and a digital version would allow for a wider application. To develop a digital self-reported version of G8, and to compare its outcomes with in-person G8 administered by a healthcare professional. A total of 483 cancer patients aged 70 years and older who received an in-person G8 assessment at the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS) clinic, and another 544 who completed the digital self-reported G8 were analysed. Total G8 score ≤14 was defined as positive screen. Response rate of the digital self-reported G8 was 50%. Median G8 total score was lower among online screeners than in-person screeners (11 vs 12.5, p < 0.001). The odds of a G8 positive screen among online screeners was higher than that of in-person screeners on multivariable logistic regression analysis (odds ratio = 1.56, 95% CI 1.08-2.26). Some 20 in-person screeners had also completed the digital self-reported G8, and the agreement between their in-person and online G8 total scores was high (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.798, 95% CI 0.635-0.962). A digital self-reported G8 is feasible. However, given the higher positive screen rate among the online screeners, replacement of the in-person G8 with the digital self-reported G8 should be implemented only after more conclusive evidence on the agreement between in-person and online G8 score is available.
数字式自我报告 G8 筛查工具:对比研究
老年评估(GA)已被证明对老年癌症患者的预后至关重要。G8筛查工具可以作为一种潜在的替代工具,在繁忙的肿瘤诊所中识别出哪些患者可以从进一步的老年医学评估中获益,而数字版的G8筛查工具则可以得到更广泛的应用。开发数字版自我报告 G8,并将其结果与医护人员亲自进行的 G8 进行比较。我们分析了在新加坡国立癌症中心(NCCS)诊所接受现场 G8 评估的 483 名 70 岁及以上癌症患者,以及完成数字自我报告 G8 的另外 544 名患者。G8总分≤14分为阳性筛查。数字自报 G8 的响应率为 50%。在线筛查者的 G8 总分中位数低于亲自筛查者(11 分 vs 12.5 分,p < 0.001)。在多变量逻辑回归分析中,在线筛查者的 G8 阳性几率高于亲自筛查者(几率比 = 1.56,95% CI 1.08-2.26)。约有 20 名亲自筛查者也完成了数字自我报告 G8,他们的亲自和在线 G8 总分之间的一致性很高(一致性相关系数 = 0.798,95% CI 0.635-0.962)。数字自我报告 G8 是可行的。不过,鉴于在线筛查者的阳性筛查率较高,只有在获得更多关于现场和在线 G8 分数一致性的确凿证据后,才能用数字自我报告 G8 取代现场 G8。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信