1
|
Balstad TR, Bye A, Jenssen CRS, Solheim TS, Thoresen L, Sand K. Patient interpretation of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) Short Form. Patient Prefer Adherence 2019; 13:1391-1400. [PMID: 31496666 PMCID: PMC6701615 DOI: 10.2147/ppa.s204188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2019] [Accepted: 05/02/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) is a patient-reported instrument for assessment of nutrition status in patients with cancer. Despite thorough validation of PG-SGA, little has been reported about the way patients perceive, interpret, and respond to PG-SGA. The aim of this study was to investigate how patients interpret the patient-generated part of the PG-SGA, called PG-SGA Short Form. METHODS Purposive sampling was used to identify participants that had experienced weight loss and/or reduced dietary intake and/or had a low body mass index. Data were collected from 23 patients by combining observations of patients filling in the PG-SGA Short Form, think-aloud technique and structured interviews, and analyzed qualitatively using systematic text condensation. RESULTS Most of the participants managed to complete the PG-SGA Short Form without problems. However, participant-related and questionnaire-related sources of misinterpretation were identified, possibly causing misinterpretations or wrong/missing answers. Participants either read too fast and skipped words, or they struggled to find response options that were suitable for covering their entire situation perfectly. The word "normal" was perceived ambiguous, and the word "only" limited the participants' possibility to accurately describe their food intake. Long recall periods in the questions and two-pieced response options made it difficult for patients to select only one option. CONCLUSION The results of this study provide a unique patient perspective of using the PG-SGA Short Form and valuable input for future use and revisions of the form. The identified sources of misunderstanding could be used to develop a standardized instruction manual for patients and health care personnel using the PG-SGA Short Form.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Trude R Balstad
- Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
- Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
- Correspondence: Trude R BalstadDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Postbox 8905, Trondheim7491, NorwayTel +47 7 282 6060Email
| | - Asta Bye
- Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
- European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Cathrine RS Jenssen
- Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Tora S Solheim
- Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
- Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Lene Thoresen
- Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
- National Advisory Unit on Disease-related Malnutrition, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Kari Sand
- Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
- Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
- SINTEF Digital, Department of Health Research, Trondheim, Norway
| |
Collapse
|