Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Cancer symptom scale preferences: does one size fit all?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Cancer symptom scale preferences: does one size fit all?
Do you wish to request the book?
Cancer symptom scale preferences: does one size fit all?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Cancer symptom scale preferences: does one size fit all?
2018
Overview
Patients with advanced cancer do not report all symptoms, so assessment is best done systematically. However, for such patients, completion rates of some symptom instruments are <50%. Symptoms can be quantified by various scales including the Categorical Response Scale (CRS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Patient preferences for CRS, NRS and VAS in symptom assessment and their clinical utility in 3 cancer symptoms: pain, tiredness and appetite loss were determined.
A prospective survey was conducted involving cancer admissions to a 36-bed palliative care unit.
100 inpatients were recruited, aged 38-93 years (x̅ =71 years; SD=11.6), with median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scores of 2 (range 0-4). VAS was the least preferred measure. 52% of patients choose the same scale for all 3 symptoms and 44% for 2, with 4% choosing a different individual scale per symptom. There was moderate agreement between participant scale preference and observer determined ease of scale completion (loss of appetite: κ=0.36; pain: κ=0.49; tiredness: κ=0.45). Participants preferred CRS for appetite loss (48%) and tiredness (40%) and NRS for pain (44%).
VAS was the least favoured scale and should be used cautiously in this population. Most participants had a scale preference with high intrapatient consistency between scales. CRS was preferred for appetite loss and tiredness and NRS for pain. Consideration should be given to individualised cancer symptom assessment according to patient scale preference.
