Use of comprehensive geriatric assessment among oncologists in Uruguay: perceptions, practices and barriers.

IF 1.5 Q4 ONCOLOGY
ecancermedicalscience Pub Date : 2026-03-31 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2026.2105
Noelia Silveyraa, Clara Tambascob, Dahiana Amarilloc, Natalia Camejod, Gabriel Krygiere
{"title":"Use of comprehensive geriatric assessment among oncologists in Uruguay: perceptions, practices and barriers.","authors":"Noelia Silveyraa, Clara Tambascob, Dahiana Amarilloc, Natalia Camejod, Gabriel Krygiere","doi":"10.3332/ecancer.2026.2105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Population ageing has increased the proportion of older adults with cancer, a group characterised by high comorbidity burden and marked clinical heterogeneity. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is recommended by international guidelines to identify vulnerabilities and guide safer, more personalised treatment decisions. However, its implementation remains limited, and there is scarce information about its use in Uruguay.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe perceptions, practices and barriers regarding the use of CGA among oncologists and trainees in Uruguay.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study using an anonymous electronic questionnaire. Medical oncologists, radiation oncologists and physicians in training (postgraduate oncology training) involved in the clinical care of patients with cancer were included. A descriptive analysis was performed, and chi-square tests were used to compare frequencies between groups (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 60 physicians responded, representing approximately 60% of the national oncology community. Although 55% reported being familiar with the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline, only 31.7% reported using formal CGA tools, and just 11.7% applied CGA routinely. Informal evaluation based on clinical judgement predominated. Functional status was the most frequently assessed domain (79%), while physical performance was the least used (>70% never or almost never). Participants familiar with the guideline assessed life expectancy and cognition more frequently, with statistically significant differences (p = 0.048). The most commonly reported barriers were lack of resources for referral, limited physical space and insufficient training. Among those unfamiliar with the guideline, perceived limited evidence and uncertainty about which tool to use were predominant barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CGA use in Uruguay is low, revealing a substantial gap between knowledge and implementation. The identified barriers highlight the need to strengthen training, improve available resources and promote institutional strategies to support CGA integration, with the aim of improving care for older adults with cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":11460,"journal":{"name":"ecancermedicalscience","volume":"20 ","pages":"2105"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13319355/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ecancermedicalscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2026.2105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Population ageing has increased the proportion of older adults with cancer, a group characterised by high comorbidity burden and marked clinical heterogeneity. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is recommended by international guidelines to identify vulnerabilities and guide safer, more personalised treatment decisions. However, its implementation remains limited, and there is scarce information about its use in Uruguay.

Objective: To describe perceptions, practices and barriers regarding the use of CGA among oncologists and trainees in Uruguay.

Materials and methods: We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study using an anonymous electronic questionnaire. Medical oncologists, radiation oncologists and physicians in training (postgraduate oncology training) involved in the clinical care of patients with cancer were included. A descriptive analysis was performed, and chi-square tests were used to compare frequencies between groups (p < 0.05).

Results: A total of 60 physicians responded, representing approximately 60% of the national oncology community. Although 55% reported being familiar with the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline, only 31.7% reported using formal CGA tools, and just 11.7% applied CGA routinely. Informal evaluation based on clinical judgement predominated. Functional status was the most frequently assessed domain (79%), while physical performance was the least used (>70% never or almost never). Participants familiar with the guideline assessed life expectancy and cognition more frequently, with statistically significant differences (p = 0.048). The most commonly reported barriers were lack of resources for referral, limited physical space and insufficient training. Among those unfamiliar with the guideline, perceived limited evidence and uncertainty about which tool to use were predominant barriers.

Conclusions: CGA use in Uruguay is low, revealing a substantial gap between knowledge and implementation. The identified barriers highlight the need to strengthen training, improve available resources and promote institutional strategies to support CGA integration, with the aim of improving care for older adults with cancer.

在乌拉圭肿瘤学家中使用综合老年评估:观念、做法和障碍。
人口老龄化增加了老年人患癌症的比例,这一群体的特点是高合并症负担和明显的临床异质性。国际准则建议进行老年综合评估(CGA),以确定脆弱性并指导更安全、更个性化的治疗决策。但是,它的执行仍然有限,关于乌拉圭使用它的资料很少。目的:描述认知,实践和障碍关于使用CGA在乌拉圭肿瘤学家和培训生。材料和方法:我们使用匿名电子问卷进行了一项观察性横断面研究。参与癌症患者临床护理的内科肿瘤学家、放射肿瘤学家和培训医师(研究生肿瘤学培训)也包括在内。采用描述性分析,组间频率比较采用卡方检验(p < 0.05)。结果:共有60名医生回应,约占全国肿瘤学社区的60%。尽管55%的患者报告熟悉美国临床肿瘤学会指南,但只有31.7%的患者报告使用正式的CGA工具,只有11.7%的患者常规使用CGA。基于临床判断的非正式评估占主导地位。功能状态是最常被评估的领域(79%),而身体性能是最少被评估的领域(>70%从未或几乎从未)。熟悉指南的参与者更频繁地评估预期寿命和认知能力,差异有统计学意义(p = 0.048)。最常见的障碍是缺乏转诊资源、有限的实际空间和培训不足。在不熟悉指南的人群中,认为证据有限和不确定使用哪种工具是主要障碍。结论:乌拉圭的CGA使用率很低,表明知识与实施之间存在巨大差距。已确定的障碍突出了加强培训、改善现有资源和促进机构战略以支持CGA整合的必要性,目的是改善对老年癌症患者的护理。
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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.60%
发文量
138
审稿时长
27 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书