Putting Guidelines Into Practice: Is Frailty Measurement at the Time of Kidney Transplant Eligibility Assessment Valid, Feasible, and Acceptable to Patients?

IF 1.9 Q3 TRANSPLANTATION
Transplantation Direct Pub Date : 2023-10-16 eCollection Date: 2023-11-01 DOI:10.1097/TXD.0000000000001548
Shavini Weerasekera, Natasha Reid, Adrienne Young, Ryan Homes, Aaron Sia, Fiona Giddens, Ross S Francis, Ruth E Hubbard, Emily H Gordon
{"title":"Putting Guidelines Into Practice: Is Frailty Measurement at the Time of Kidney Transplant Eligibility Assessment Valid, Feasible, and Acceptable to Patients?","authors":"Shavini Weerasekera,&nbsp;Natasha Reid,&nbsp;Adrienne Young,&nbsp;Ryan Homes,&nbsp;Aaron Sia,&nbsp;Fiona Giddens,&nbsp;Ross S Francis,&nbsp;Ruth E Hubbard,&nbsp;Emily H Gordon","doi":"10.1097/TXD.0000000000001548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical Practice Guidelines suggest that frailty be measured during kidney transplant eligibility assessments. Yet it is not known how frailty is best assessed in this setting or whether its assessment is acceptable to patients. We aimed to examine the construct validity and feasibility of Frailty Index (FI) assessment among patients attending a kidney transplant assessment clinic and to explore patients' perspectives on frailty and the acceptability of its routine assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 58-item FI was calculated for 147 clinic patients. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a subgroup of 29 patients. The FI was validated against normative FI characteristics (mean, distribution, limit), age, and the Estimated Post-Transplant Survival Score. Feasibility was assessed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean FI was 0.23 (±0.10, normal distribution, limit 0.53). FI increased with age and Estimated Post-Transplant Survival score. The FI was completed for 62.8% of eligible patients (147/234). The median completion time was 10 min, and completion rate (with no missing data) was 100%. Four themes were identified: perceptions of frailty, acceptability, perceived benefits, and risks of frailty measurement. Patients linked frailty with age and adverse outcomes, and most did not consider themselves frail. Patients reported that the FI was quick, simple, and efficient. They felt that frailty assessment is relevant to transplant eligibility and should be used to address potentially reversible factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The FI demonstrated construct validity and was feasible and acceptable in this clinic setting. The challenge is ensuring that routine assessments lead to better care.</p>","PeriodicalId":23225,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Direct","volume":"9 11","pages":"e1548"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3b/df/txd-9-e1548.PMC10581598.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Direct","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001548","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPLANTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical Practice Guidelines suggest that frailty be measured during kidney transplant eligibility assessments. Yet it is not known how frailty is best assessed in this setting or whether its assessment is acceptable to patients. We aimed to examine the construct validity and feasibility of Frailty Index (FI) assessment among patients attending a kidney transplant assessment clinic and to explore patients' perspectives on frailty and the acceptability of its routine assessment.

Methods: A 58-item FI was calculated for 147 clinic patients. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a subgroup of 29 patients. The FI was validated against normative FI characteristics (mean, distribution, limit), age, and the Estimated Post-Transplant Survival Score. Feasibility was assessed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: The mean FI was 0.23 (±0.10, normal distribution, limit 0.53). FI increased with age and Estimated Post-Transplant Survival score. The FI was completed for 62.8% of eligible patients (147/234). The median completion time was 10 min, and completion rate (with no missing data) was 100%. Four themes were identified: perceptions of frailty, acceptability, perceived benefits, and risks of frailty measurement. Patients linked frailty with age and adverse outcomes, and most did not consider themselves frail. Patients reported that the FI was quick, simple, and efficient. They felt that frailty assessment is relevant to transplant eligibility and should be used to address potentially reversible factors.

Conclusions: The FI demonstrated construct validity and was feasible and acceptable in this clinic setting. The challenge is ensuring that routine assessments lead to better care.

Abstract Image

实施指南:肾移植资格评估时的脆弱性测量是否有效、可行且患者可接受?
背景:临床实践指南建议在肾移植资格评估期间测量虚弱程度。然而,目前尚不清楚在这种情况下如何最好地评估虚弱,也不知道患者是否可以接受这种评估。我们的目的是在肾移植评估诊所的患者中检验虚弱指数(FI)评估的结构有效性和可行性,并探讨患者对虚弱的看法及其常规评估的可接受性。方法:对147例临床患者进行58项FI的计算。对29名患者进行了半结构化访谈。根据标准FI特征(平均值、分布、限值)、年龄和估计移植后生存分数对FI进行验证。使用描述性统计对可行性进行了评估。定性数据采用自反主题分析法进行分析。结果:平均FI为0.23(±0.10,正态分布,极限0.53)。FI随年龄和估计移植后生存分数的增加而增加。62.8%符合条件的患者(147/234)完成了FI。中位完成时间为10 分钟,完成率(没有遗漏数据)为100%。确定了四个主题:对脆弱性的感知、可接受性、感知的益处和脆弱性测量的风险。患者将虚弱与年龄和不良后果联系在一起,大多数患者并不认为自己虚弱。患者报告FI快速、简单、有效。他们认为虚弱评估与移植资格相关,应用于解决潜在的可逆因素。结论:FI证明了结构的有效性,在这种临床环境中是可行和可接受的。挑战在于确保常规评估能够带来更好的护理。
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
Transplantation Direct
Transplantation Direct TRANSPLANTATION-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
193
审稿时长
8 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信