Oncology providers' use of evidence-based fatigue assessment in patient care: A descriptive study

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a subjective, distressing symptom for a majority of cancer patients and survivors. CRF is commonly an under-diagnosed, under-treated, and under-reported symptom that negatively affects the lives of patients causing decreased quality of life, impairment, and negative socioeconomic consequences (NCCN, 2014; Weis & Horneber, 2015). The purpose of this study is to determine whether oncology providers are assessing for CRF utilizing an evidence-based tool and understanding their attitudes towards CRF assessment in practice. The aim of this project is to evaluate and potentially improve the awareness and assessment of CRF in the cancer patient population by utilizing an evidence-based assessment tool.

A survey was administered to oncology providers (Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs), MDs, DOs, and PAs) in the state of Arizona via emails and flyers. Data collected included demographics of participants, practice characteristics, CRF assessment and use of evidence-based tools, CRF assessment barriers, CRF interventions, and CRF assessment attitudes and beliefs. Data from 31 surveys were used for analysis. A majority of the respondents were female (84%, n=26) and APRNs (76%, n=22). All of the providers surveyed reported assessing for CRF in practice; however, 62% (n=18) of providers did not utilize an evidence-based tool for CRF assessment. Every provider agreed they felt comfortable assessing for CRF, that it was important, and their responsibility in practice. Sixty-two percent of providers (n=18) stated they were likely to research more information on CRF assessment for use in their practice after the survey. A Fisher’s exact test was completed to determine if there was a relationship between the type of provider and use of an evidence-based CRF assessment tool. With the alpha 12 set at 0.05 the p-value was 0.677, not significant, meaning there was no relationship between the type of provider and use of an evidence-based CRF assessment tool.

After analysis of results, it was concluded that further education would be beneficial to enhance provider knowledge of evidence-based CRF tools and available clinical practice guidelines on CRF. The continued education would work to improve patient CRF assessment and treatment in cancer patients. Further research is also needed to improve knowledge of CRF evidence-based tools and barriers to their use in practice.