Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31496666›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2019

Patient interpretation of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) Short Form.

Trude R Balstad, Asta Bye, Cathrine Rs Jenssen, Tora S Solheim, Lene Thoresen, Kari Sand

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Patient, family and carer experiences of nutritional screening: a systematic review.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Trude R BalstadDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Asta ByeDepartment of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Cathrine Rs JenssenDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Tora S SolheimDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Lene ThoresenCancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Kari SandDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsPurposive 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.

resultsMost 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.

conclusionThe 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.

Indexed as

patient involvementpatient-reported outcome measuresPG-SGAqualitative researchvalidation studies

Identifiers

PMID31496666
PMCPMC6701615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.