The Development and Feasibility of a Novel Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (Eproms) Questionnaire in patients with penile cancer

被引:1
|
作者
Adegboye, Oluwatobi [1 ,2 ]
Churchill, James [2 ]
Moorjani, John [2 ]
Johnson, Helen [2 ]
Capper, Sharon [2 ]
Booker, Jane [2 ]
Parnham, Arie [2 ]
Lau, Maurice [2 ]
Sangar, Vijay [1 ,2 ]
Faivre-Finn, Corinne [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Manchester, Dept Med & Hlth, Manchester, England
[2] Christie NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Surg, Wilmslow Rd, Manchester M20 4BX, England
关键词
Electronic patient-reported outcomes measure; ePROMs; Feasibility; Patient-reported outcome measures; PROMs; Service evaluation; SURGERY; INDEX; CARE;
D O I
10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102168
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
This study reports the development and feasibility of a novel electronic patient-reported outcome measures questionnaire for patients with penile cancer. 220 adult males were sent questionnaires, and 141 (64%) responded initially. The mean dropout rate of subsequent questionnaires was 56%, displaying that over time patients struggled to maintain adherence and engagement. The questionnaire requires additional validation, research, and education. Background: Penile cancer (PeCa) is a rare cancer with surgical options that affect patients' quality-of-life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are uncommonly utilized in this cohort despite their several patient-centered benefits and there are recommendations to further digitalize PROMs. This prospective, population-based study aimed to report the development and feasibility of a novel electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) questionnaire for patients with PeCa. Materials and methods: A novel ePROMs questionnaire was developed and sent to patients 3 days before outpatient clinic appointments. The questionnaire included up to 30 items on patient symptomology and quality-of-life, including a self-reported quality-of-life score (rated 0 being worst and 100 being best). Data were collected for patients followed up between August 2021 and May 2022. The primary feasibility outcomes, adherence and engagement, were measured by response and drop-out rates. Differences in responders and nonresponders were also ascertained. Secondary outcomes explored the clinical utility of the questionnaire. Responders were subcategorized into 3 groups: circumcision (Ci), partial penectomy (PP) or total penectomy (TP) and differences were analyzed. This study was approved by the local Trust Governance Panel, including for ethical considerations. Results: 220 adult males were sent ePROMs questionnaires, and 141 (64%) responded initially. The mean dropout rate of subsequent questionnaires was 56%. The maximum number of questionnaires sent to and completed by a patient was 8 (n = 1). Nonresponders were older (P < .0001), with poorer performance status (P < .0001) and lower body mass index (P = .0288). TP patients reported the lowest median quality-of-life score 68.50 (8-99), followed by the Ci group (72.0, 37-94) and the PP group (76.0, 10-99). Conclusions: Patients initially engaged and adhered to the ePROMs questionnaire but struggled to maintain this over time. Clinical data gathered by the questionnaire may be utilized to inform patient care. The questionnaire requires additional validation, research, and education.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures for patients with skin cancer, 2013
    Gibbons, E.
    Casanas i Comabella, C.
    Fitzpatrick, R.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 2013, 168 (06) : 1176 - 1186
  • [32] Engaging Patients as Partners in Developing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cancer-A Review of the Literature
    Camuso, Natasha
    Bajaj, Prerna
    Dudgeon, Deborah
    Mitera, Gunita
    SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER, 2016, 24 (08) : 3543 - 3549
  • [33] Assessment of patient-reported outcome measures in the surgical treatment of patients with gastric cancer
    Jennifer Straatman
    Nicole van der Wielen
    Pieter J. Joosten
    Caroline B. Terwee
    Miguel A. Cuesta
    Elise P. Jansma
    Donald L. van der Peet
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2016, 30 : 1920 - 1929
  • [34] Patient-reported experience with patient-reported outcome measures in adult patients seen in rheumatology clinics
    Lapin, Brittany R.
    Honomichl, Ryan
    Thompson, Nicolas
    Rose, Susannah
    Abelson, Abby
    Deal, Chad
    Katzan, Irene L.
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2021, 30 (04) : 1073 - 1082
  • [35] A review of the barriers to using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care
    Hanh Nguyen
    Butow, Phyllis
    Dhillon, Haryana
    Sundaresan, Puma
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RADIATION SCIENCES, 2021, 68 (02) : 186 - 195
  • [36] Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review
    Wiering, Bianca
    de Boer, Dolf
    Delnoij, Diana
    HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2017, 20 (01) : 11 - 23
  • [37] Advancing patient-centered cancer care: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcome measures
    Salmani, Hosna
    Nasiri, Somayeh
    Alemrajabi, Mahdi
    Ahmadi, Maryam
    FRONTIERS IN REHABILITATION SCIENCES, 2024, 5
  • [38] Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: The developers’ perspective
    Bianca Wiering
    Dolf de Boer
    Diana Delnoij
    BMC Health Services Research, 17
  • [39] Usability testing of EirV3a computer-based tool for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer
    Krogstad, Hilde
    Sundt-Hansen, Stine Marie
    Hjermstad, Marianne Jensen
    Hagensen, Liv Agot
    Kaasa, Stein
    Loge, Jon Havard
    Raj, Sunil X.
    Steinsbekk, Aslak
    Sand, Kari
    SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER, 2019, 27 (05) : 1835 - 1844
  • [40] Patient-reported outcome measures in urology
    Narang, Gopal L.
    Pannell, Stephanie C.
    Laviana, Aaron A.
    Huen, Kathy H. Y.
    Izard, Jason
    Smith, Angela B.
    Bergman, Jonathan
    CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, 2017, 27 (04) : 366 - 374