Assessing Physical and Cognitive Function in Individuals With Head and Neck Cancer: A Feasibility Study.
Moira A Visovatti, Mi Sook Jung, Heidi Mason and 3 others
PMID 35025776WHAT IT FOUND
A pedometer, NIH Toolbox, and REDCap battery was feasible and acceptable in newly diagnosed head and neck cancer patients.
They walked fewer steps and reported worse symptoms at follow-up; some attention and cognitive flexibility tests improved.
Key findings
01The feasibility rates were enrollment 49%, retention 81%, and pedometer adherence 86%, and 76.9% would wear the tracker again.
02At follow-up, patients walked fewer steps and reported more time sitting.
03Symptom severity and interference with daily activities increased, while performance on attention and cognitive flexibility tests improved.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 16 people were enrolled and 14 were analysed, so the study is too small to prove changes. There was no control group, so treatment effects and natural changes cannot be separated. The sample was mostly white, male, highly educated, and had oral cavity or oropharynx cancer, so it may not represent other head and neck cancer patients. Only two assessment times were used, so changes during the 3 months were missed. Visits took about 60 minutes, and patients were acutely ill, which may limit real-world use. People already in clinical trials were excluded, so the sample may be sicker or different from routine head and neck cancer patients.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The paper is listed as supported by NIH extramural research.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the step decline or cognitive test changes as proven effects of treatment. The study had no control group, only 14 analysed patients, and was designed to test feasibility, not efficacy.