Identification and management of cancer cachexia in patients: Assessment of healthcare providers' knowledge and practice gaps
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Cancer cachexia negatively impacts patient outcomes, quality of life and survival. Identification and management of cancer cachexia remains challenging to healthcare professionals (HCPs). The aim of this assessment was to identify current gaps in HCPs' knowledge and practice for identifying and managing adults with cancer-related cachexia. Results may guide development of new educational programmes to close identified gaps and improve outcomes of cancer patients. METHODS: An international assessment was conducted using a mixed-methods approach including focus group interviews with subject matter experts and an electronic survey of practising HCP. The assessment was led by the Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders (SCWD) and was supported by in-country collaborating organizations. RESULTS: A quantitative survey of 58 multiple-choice questions was completed by physicians, nurses dietitians and other oncology HCP (N = 2375). Of all respondents, 23.7% lacked confidence in their ability to provide care for patients with cancer cachexia. Patients with gastrointestinal, head and neck, pulmonary cancers and leukaemia/lymphoma were reported as those at highest risk for cachexia. Only 29.1% of respondents recognized a key criterion of cancer cachexia as >5% weight loss from baseline, but many (14.4%) did not utilize a standardized definition of cancer cachexia. Despite this, most clinicians (>84%) were able to identify causes of weight loss-reduced oral intake, progressive disease, side effects of therapy and disease-related inflammation. Of all respondents, 52.7% indicated newly diagnosed patients with cancer should be screened for weight loss. In practice, 61.9% reported that patient weight was systematically tracked over time, but only 1125 (47.4%) reported they weigh their cancer patients at each visit. Treatment of cachexia focused on increasing the patient's nutritional intake by oral nutritional supplements (64.2%), energy and protein fortified foods (60.3%) and counselling by a dietitian (57.1%). Whereas many respondents (37.3%) considered cachexia inevitable, most (79.2%) believed that an interprofessional team approach could improve care and that use of standardized tools is critical. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this international assessment highlight the challenges associated with the care of patients with cancer cachexia, opportunities for interventions to improve patient outcomes and areas of variance in care that would benefit from further analysis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».