Cancer symptom scale preferences: does one size fit all?

OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: A prospective survey was conducted involving cancer admissions to a 36-bed palliative care unit. RESULTS: 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%). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Have Standard Tests of Cognitive Function Been Misappropriated in the Study of Cognitive Enhancement?

In the past decade, there has emerged a vast research literature dealing with attempts to harness brain plasticity in older adults, with a view to improving cognitive function. Since cognitive training (CT) has shown restricted utility in this regard, attention has increasingly turned to interventions that use adjunct procedures such as motor training or physical activity (PA). As evidence builds that these have some efficacy, it becomes necessary to ensure that the outcome measures being used to infer causal influence upon cognitive function are subjected to appropriate critical appraisal. It has been highlighted previously that the choice of specific tasks used to demonstrate transfer to the cognitive domain is of critical importance. In the context of most intervention studies, standardized tests and batteries of cognitive function are de rigueur. The argument presented here is that the latent constructs to which these tests relate are not usually subject to a sufficient level of analytic scrutiny. We present the historical origins of some exemplar tests, and give particular consideration to the limits on explanatory scope that are implied by their composition and the nature of their deployment. In addition to surveying the validity of these tests when used to appraise intervention-related changes in cognitive function, we also consider their neurophysiological correlates. In particular, we argue that the broadly distributed brain activity associated with the performance of many tests of cognitive function, extending to the classical motor networks, permits the impact of interventions based on motor training or PA to be better understood.