Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2061-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The purpose of the study was to compare completeness, timeliness and cost of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collection using telephone, email and post in men with prostate cancer.
A parallel, three-arm randomised controlled equivalence trial. 1168 patients were randomised to telephone (n = 295), postal (n = 388) and email (n = 385) arms. Participants were asked to provide self-reported responses for 26 items of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite. Cost and resource data were collected from a provider perspective.
Equivalence tests showed no difference in completeness in the three arms within a 10% equivalence margin. Men diagnosed in public hospitals were less likely to complete the survey compared to those in private hospitals, OR = 0.19 (95% CI 0.04–0.89) (p = 0.035). The email survey required significantly less time to complete than telephone and postal methods [median time of 2 min (IQR 1,8) vs. 7 min (IQR 6,9) vs. 10 min (IQR 9,12), respectively (p < 0.001)]. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for email compared to telephone was AUD$1.90, cost-effective if users valued an additional 1% improvement in survey completion greater than AUD$1.90.
Email method took less time and cost and should be used as the primary PROMs collection, with telephone if men without email or do not respond to email.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1027 KB)11136_2018_2061_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Basch, E. (2014). New frontiers in patient-reported outcomes: Adverse event reporting, comparative effectiveness, and quality assessment. Annual Review of Medicine, 65, 307–317. CrossRef
Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ, 346, f167. CrossRef
Weldring, T., & Smith, S. M. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Services Insights, 6, 61. CrossRef
Chen, J., Ou, L., & Hollis, S. J. (2013). A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Services Research, 13(1), 1–24. CrossRef
Recinos, P. F., Dunphy, C. J., Thompson, N., Schuschu, J., Urchek, J. L., & Katzan, I. L. (2017). Patient satisfaction with collection of patient-reported outcome measures in routine care. Advances in Therapy, 34(2), 452–465. CrossRef
Wilcox, N., & McNeil, J. J. (2016). Clinical quality registries have the potential to drive improvements in the appropriateness of care. The Medical Journal of Australia, 205(10 Suppl), S21–S26. CrossRef
Thompson, C. J., Morris, D., Sansoni, J. E., Capell, J. T., & Williams, K. (2016). Patient reported outcome measures: An environmental scan of the Australian health care sector. Wollongong: Australian Health Services Research Institute
Cella, D. F., Hahn, E. A., Jensen, S. E., Butt, Z., Nowinski, C. J., Rothrock, N., et al. (2015). Patient-reported outcomes in performance measurement. Research Triangle Park: RTI Press CrossRef
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340. CrossRef
Nota, S. P., Strooker, J. A., & Ring, D. (2014). Differences in response rates between mail, e-mail, and telephone follow-up in hand surgery research. Hand, 9(4), 504–510. CrossRef
Harewood, G., Yacavone, R., Locke, G. III, & Wiersema, M. (2001). Prospective comparison of endoscopy patient satisfaction surveys: E-mail versus standard mail versus telephone. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 96(12), 3312. CrossRef
Pealer, L. N., Weiler, R. M., Pigg, R. M. Jr., Miller, D., & Dorman, S. M. (2001). The feasibility of a web-based surveillance system to collect health risk behavior data from college students. Health Education and Behavior, 28(5), 547–559. CrossRef
Abernethy, A. P., Herndon, J. E., Wheeler, J. L., Patwardhan, M., Shaw, H., Lyerly, H. K., et al. (2008). Improving health care efficiency and quality using tablet personal computers to collect research-quality, patient-reported data. Health Services Research, 43(6), 1975–1991. CrossRef
Hoque, D. M. E., Sampurno, F., Ruseckaite, R., Lorgelly, P., & Evans, S. M. (2017). Study protocol of an equivalence randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of three different approaches to collecting patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) data using the prostate cancer outcomes registry-victoria (PCOR-VIC). BMC Health Services Research, 17(1), 75. CrossRef
Evans, S. M., Millar, J. L., Wood, J. M., Davis, I. D., Bolton, D., Giles, G. G., et al. (2013). The prostate cancer registry: Monitoring patterns and quality of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. BJU International, 111(4b), E158–E166. CrossRef
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). The Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD). http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2033.0.55.001~2016~Main%20Features~IRSAD~20.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network Inc US. (2016). National Comprehensive Cancer Network staging criteria for prostate cancer. https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/prostate/files/assets/common/downloads/files/prostate.pdf.
Bojcic, J. L., Sue, V. M., Huon, T. S., Maletis, G. B., & Inacio, M. C. (2014). Comparison of paper and electronic surveys for measuring patient-reported outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The Permanente Journal, 18(3), 22. CrossRef
Bech, M., & Kristensen, M. B. (2009). Differential response rates in postal and Web-based surveys in older respondents. Survey Research Methods, 3(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2009.v3i1.592 CrossRef
Smith, A. B., King, M., Butow, P., & Olver, I. (2013). A comparison of data quality and practicality of online versus postal questionnaires in a sample of testicular cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology, 22(1), 233–237. CrossRef
Kwak, N., & Radler, B. (2002). A comparison between mail and web surveys: Response pattern, respondent profile, and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics-Stockholm, 18(2):257–274.
Lannin, N. A., Anderson, C., Lim, J., Paice, K., Price, C., Faux, S., et al. (2013). Telephone follow-up was more expensive but more efficient than postal in a national stroke registry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8), 896–902. CrossRef
Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J., et al. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the internet. Social Science Research, 38(1), 1–18. CrossRef
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken: Wiley
- A randomised controlled trial comparing completeness of responses of three methods of collecting patient-reported outcome measures in men diagnosed with prostate cancer
Dewan Md. Emdadul Hoque
Sue M. Evans
- Springer International Publishing
Quality of Life Research
An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation - Official Journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, digitale Transformation/© Maksym Yemelyanov | Fotolia