Loading…

Cognitive function and ability to complete a web‐based geriatric assessment among older adults with cancer

Background The purpose of this study was determined whether cognitive impairment is associated with time taken to complete the electronic rapid fitness assessment (eRFA). We hypothesized that taking more time to complete the eRFA will indicate worsened cognitive function. Methods We retrospectively...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) 2024-02, Vol.72 (2), p.503-511
Main Authors: Hoffmann, Alexxandra J., Tin, Amy L., Vickers, Andrew J., Shahrokni, Armin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The purpose of this study was determined whether cognitive impairment is associated with time taken to complete the electronic rapid fitness assessment (eRFA). We hypothesized that taking more time to complete the eRFA will indicate worsened cognitive function. Methods We retrospectively identified patients who presented to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Geriatrics Service for preoperative evaluation and completed the eRFA as a part of their preoperative assessment from February 2015 to December 2020. Cognitive function was assessed using the Mini‐Cog©, which is a screening test for cognitive function status. Patients in this study underwent elective surgery and had a hospital length of stay ≥1 day. Time to complete the eRFA was automatically recorded by a web‐based tool; assistance with eRFA completion was self‐reported by the patient. In total, 2599 patients were included, of which 2387 had available Mini‐Cog© scores. Results Overall, 50% of surveys were completed without assistance, 37% were completed with assistance, and 13% were completed by somebody else; Mini‐Cog© scores were lower, corresponding to worsened cognitive function status, in patients requiring assistance (median score respectively, 5 vs. 4 vs. 3; p‐value
ISSN:0002-8614
1532-5415
1532-5415
DOI:10.1111/jgs.18682