Advertisement

Comparison of Patient-Reported Quality-of-Life and Complications in Men With Prostate Cancer, Between Two Modes of Administration

  • Fanny Sampurno
    Affiliations
    Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Rasa Ruseckaite
    Correspondence
    Address for correspondence: Rasa Ruseckaite, BSc, MSc, PhD, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, Alfred Hospital, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia
    Affiliations
    Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jeremy L. Millar
    Affiliations
    Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    William Buckland Radiation Oncology Department, The Alfred, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
  • Sue M. Evans
    Affiliations
    Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    Search for articles by this author
Published:December 22, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2015.12.016

      Abstract

      Introduction

      Our purpose was to: (1) assess the level of consistency between the quality-of-life (QOL) scores of men with prostate cancer for urinary/bowel/sexual bother, collected via telephone versus self-administered survey; (2) determine factors associated with variation in level of agreement; and (3) assess the efficacy of telephone interview as a mode of administration against the “gold standard” tool, EPIC-26.

      Methods

      Cohen's Kappa coefficients were calculated to investigate test-retest reliability across modes of administration. Logistic regression models explored patients' characteristics associated with the magnitude of urinary/bowel/sexual problem. Sensitivities and specificities of the telephone mode in reference to “gold standard” were further measured.

      Results

      From 221 men who agreed to participate in the study, 168 (76.0%) returned completed surveys. Kappa-linear model resulted in a moderate agreement across the urinary/bowel/sexual bother scores for both modes of administration; with greatest concordance recorded for bowel bother (90%). Patient's age (<75 years), disease risk, and active treatment type determined a moderate-to-good level of agreement between administration modalities with a Kappa varying between 0.44 and 0.73; χ2, 8.18; P = .042. Sensitivity tests revealed that 68% of men with a moderate/big problem during the phone interviews would respond to suffering from a moderate/big sexual problem.

      Conclusion

      Results of this pilot study revealed that QOL outcomes from this registry will likely underestimate the true bother experienced by men. More research is required to determine the differences between self-administered and telephone interviews in men with prostate cancer.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Black N.
        Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare.
        BMJ. 2013; 346: f167
        • Devlin N.
        • Appleby J.
        Getting the most of PROMs. The King's Fund.
        2010 (Available at: https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=N.DevlinJ.ApplebyGetting+the+most+of+PROMs.+The+King%27s+Fund2010. Accessed February 2015)
        • Devlin N.
        • Parkin D.
        Browne J. Patient-reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analysing and reporting ED-5D data.
        Health Econ. 2010; 19: 886-905
        • Dawson J.
        • Doll H.
        • Fitzpatrick R.
        • Jenkinson C.
        • Carr A.
        Routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings.
        BMJ. 2010; 340: 464-467
        • Glaser A.
        • Fraser L.
        • Corner J.
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcomes of cancer survivors in England 1–5 years after diagnosis: a cross-sectional survey.
        BMJ Open. 2013; 3: e002317
        • Bausewein C.
        • Simon S.
        • Benalia A.
        • et al.
        Implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care - users' cry for help.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011; 9: 1-11
        • Greenhalgh J.
        • Abhyankar P.
        • McCluskey S.
        • Takeuchi E.
        • Velikova G.
        How do doctors refer to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) in oncology consultations?.
        Qual Life Res. 2013; 22: 939-950
        • Hashine K.
        • Nakashima T.
        • Lio H.
        • Ueno Y.
        • Shimizu S.
        • Ninomiya I.
        Health-related quality of life in the first year after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy.
        Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2014; 44: 686-691
        • Maguire R.
        • Kotronoulas G.
        • Papadopoulou C.
        • Simpson M.
        • McPhelim J.
        • Irvine L.
        Patient-reported outcome measures for the identification of supportive care needs in people with lung cancer: are we there yet?.
        Cancer Nurs. 2013; 36: E1-E17
        • Evans S.
        • Millar J.
        • Wood J.
        • et al.
        The prostate cancer registry: monitoring patterns and quality of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2012; 111: e158-e166
        • Ream E.
        • Quennell A.
        • Fincham L.
        • et al.
        Supportive care needs of men living with prostate cancer in England: a survey.
        Br J Cancer. 2008; 98: 1903-1909
        • Smith D.
        • King M.
        • Egger S.
        • et al.
        Quality of life three years after diagnosis of localised prostate cancer: population based cohort study.
        BMJ. 2009; 339: b4817
        • Bourke L.
        • Gilbert J.
        • Hooper R.
        • et al.
        Lifestyle changes for improving disease-specific quality of life in sedentary men on long-term androgen-deprivation therapy for advanced prostate cancer: a randomised controlled trial.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 865-872
        • Rnic K.
        • Linden W.
        • Tudor I.
        • Pullmer R.
        • Vodermaier A.
        Measuring symptoms in localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of assesment instruments.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2013; 16: 111-122
        • Skolarus T.
        • Holmes-Rovner M.
        • Hawley S.
        • et al.
        Monitoring quality of life among prostate cancer survivors: the feasibility of automated telephone assessment.
        Urology. 2012; 80: 1021-1026
        • Szymanski K.
        • Wei J.
        • Dunn R.
        • Sanda M.
        Development and validation of an abbreviated version of the expanded prostate cancer index composite instrument for measuring health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors.
        Urology. 2010; 76: 1245-1250
        • O'Toole B.
        • Batista D.
        • Long A.
        • Crouch K.
        A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: mail, telephone and personal home interview.
        Am J Epidemiol. 1986; 124: 317-328
        • Bowling A.
        Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality.
        J Public Health (Oxford). 2005; 27: 281-291
        • Erhart M.
        • Wetzel R.
        • Krügel A.
        • Ravens-Sieberer U.
        Effects of phone versus mail survey methods on the measurement of health-related quality of life and emotional and behavioural problems in adolescents.
        BMC Public Health. 2009; 9: 491
        • Hawthorne G.
        The effect of different methods of collecting data: mail, telephone and filter data collection issues in utility measurement.
        Qual Life Res. 2003; 12: 1081-1088
        • Vernon S.
        • Tiro J.
        • Vojvodic R.
        • et al.
        Reliability and validity of a questionnaire to measure colorectal cancer screening behaviors: does mode of survey administration matter?.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008; 17: 758-767
        • Evans S.
        • Millar J.
        • Davis C.
        • et al.
        Patterns of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria from 2008 to 2011.
        Med J Aust. 2013; 198: 540-545
        • Evans S.
        • Millar J.
        • Frydenberg M.
        • et al.
        Positive surgical margins: rate, contributing factors and impact on further treatment: findings from the Prostate Cancer Registry.
        BJU Int. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12509
      1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer [subscription only]. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed February 2015.

        • Altman D.
        Practical Statistics for Medical Research.
        Chapman & Hall/CRC, London1991
        • Viera A.
        • Garrett J.
        Understanding interobserver agreement: the Kappa statistics.
        Fam Med. 2005; 37: 360-363
        • Dillman D.
        Why choice of survey mode makes a difference.
        Public Health Rep. 2006; 121: 11-13
        • Rhodes T.
        • Girman C.
        • Jacobsen S.
        • et al.
        Does the mode of questionnaire administration affect the reporting of urinary symptoms?.
        Urology. 1995; 46: 341-345
        • Hammer J.
        • Hays R.
        • Fryback D.
        Mode of administration is important in US national estimates of health-related quality of life.
        Med Care. 2007; 45: 1171-1179
        • Hays R.
        • Kim S.
        • Spritzer K.
        • et al.
        Effects of mode and order of administration on generic health-related quality of life scores.
        Value Health. 2009; 12: 1035-1039
        • Hochstim J.
        A critical comparison of three strategies of collecting data from households.
        J Am Stat Assoc. 1967; 62: 976-989
        • Wei J.
        • Montie J.
        Comparison of patients' and physicians' rating of urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy.
        Semin Urol. 2000; 18: 76-80
        • Befort C.
        • Zelefsky M.
        • Scardino P.
        • Borrayo E.
        • Giesler R.
        • Kattan M.
        A measure of health-related quality of life among patients with localized prostate cancxer: results from ongoing scale development.
        Clin Prostate Cancer. 2005; 4: 100-108
        • Clark J.
        • James A.
        Symptom indexes to assess outcomes of treatment for early prostate cancer.
        Med Care. 2001; 39: 1118-1130
        • Fossa S.
        Quality of life after palliative radiotherapy in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer: single institution experience.
        Br J Urol. 1994; 74: 345-351
        • Stockler M.
        • Osaba D.
        • Corey P.
        • Goodwin P.
        • Tannock I.
        Convergent discriminative, and predictive validity of the Prostate Cancer Specific Quality of Life Instrument (PROSQOLI) assesment and comparison with analogous scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a Trial-Specific Module.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52: 653-666
        • Fowler F.
        • Barry M.
        • Lu-Yao G.
        • Roman A.
        • Wasson J.
        • Wennberg J.
        Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. The National Medicare Experience: 1998-1990.
        Urology. 1993; 42: 622-629
        • Vickers A.J.
        • Savage C.J.
        • Shouery M.
        • Eastham J.A.
        • Scardino P.T.
        • Basch E.M.
        Validation study of a web-based assessment of functional recovery after radical prostatectomy.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010; 8: 82
        • Dale W.
        • Campbell T.
        • Ignacio L.
        • Song P.
        • Kopnick M.
        • Mamo C.
        Self-assessed health-related quality of life in men being treated for prostate cancer with radiotherapy: instrument validation and its relation to patient-assessed bother of symptoms.
        Int J Cancer. 2000; 90: 163-172
        • Pinto-Meza A.
        • Serrano-Blanco A.
        • Penarrubia M.
        • Blanco E.
        • Haro J.
        Assessing depression in primary care with the PHQ-9: can it be carried out over the telephone?.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2005; 20: 738-742
        • Siemiatycki J.
        A comparison of mail, telephone, and home interview strategies for household health surveys.
        Am J Public Health. 1979; 69: 238-245