A Comparison of Patient Self-Reported Fatigue in the FRAIL Scale With a Validated Fatigue Measure

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Saloni Kumar, Jude K. des Bordes, Raia Khan, Rachel Jantea, Sunyang Fu, Min Ji Kwak, Nahid J. Rianon
{"title":"A Comparison of Patient Self-Reported Fatigue in the FRAIL Scale With a Validated Fatigue Measure","authors":"Saloni Kumar,&nbsp;Jude K. des Bordes,&nbsp;Raia Khan,&nbsp;Rachel Jantea,&nbsp;Sunyang Fu,&nbsp;Min Ji Kwak,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
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