Cargando…

Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in evaluating the outcomes of surgical treatment health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and may be incorporated into related clinical quality registries. The aim of this study was to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ruseckaite, Rasa, Bavor, Claire, Marsh, Lucy, Dean, Joanne, Daly, Oliver, Vasiliadis, Dora, Ahern, Susannah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9188490/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35113307
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03099-x
_version_ 1784725381749669888
author Ruseckaite, Rasa
Bavor, Claire
Marsh, Lucy
Dean, Joanne
Daly, Oliver
Vasiliadis, Dora
Ahern, Susannah
author_facet Ruseckaite, Rasa
Bavor, Claire
Marsh, Lucy
Dean, Joanne
Daly, Oliver
Vasiliadis, Dora
Ahern, Susannah
author_sort Ruseckaite, Rasa
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in evaluating the outcomes of surgical treatment health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and may be incorporated into related clinical quality registries. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating PROMs into the Australian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR). METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with women with SUI (N = 12) and their managing clinicians (N = 11) in Victoria, Australia. Interview topics covered content and face validity, appropriateness, and acceptability of three incontinence-specific, two pain, one anxiety and depression, one sexual function and one patient global impression of improvement instruments identified through the literature to determine their suitability and acceptability for the APFPR. We analysed interview data into topics using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Study participants agreed that PROMs were needed for the APFPR. Both participant groups suggested that some of the instruments were ambiguous, therefore only three instruments (one incontinence-specific, sexual function and patient global impression of improvement) will be included in the APFPR. Both clinicians and women agreed it would be appropriate to answer PROMs at baseline and then at 6- and 12-month postsurgically. Email, phone call and mail-out of the instruments were the preferred options for administration. CONCLUSION: Most women and clinicians supported the feasibility of incorporating PROMs in the APFPR. Participants believed the PROMs would demonstrate useful aggregate HRQoL data and have potential for use in individual care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03099-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9188490
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91884902022-06-13 Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures Ruseckaite, Rasa Bavor, Claire Marsh, Lucy Dean, Joanne Daly, Oliver Vasiliadis, Dora Ahern, Susannah Qual Life Res Article PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in evaluating the outcomes of surgical treatment health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and may be incorporated into related clinical quality registries. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating PROMs into the Australian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR). METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with women with SUI (N = 12) and their managing clinicians (N = 11) in Victoria, Australia. Interview topics covered content and face validity, appropriateness, and acceptability of three incontinence-specific, two pain, one anxiety and depression, one sexual function and one patient global impression of improvement instruments identified through the literature to determine their suitability and acceptability for the APFPR. We analysed interview data into topics using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Study participants agreed that PROMs were needed for the APFPR. Both participant groups suggested that some of the instruments were ambiguous, therefore only three instruments (one incontinence-specific, sexual function and patient global impression of improvement) will be included in the APFPR. Both clinicians and women agreed it would be appropriate to answer PROMs at baseline and then at 6- and 12-month postsurgically. Email, phone call and mail-out of the instruments were the preferred options for administration. CONCLUSION: Most women and clinicians supported the feasibility of incorporating PROMs in the APFPR. Participants believed the PROMs would demonstrate useful aggregate HRQoL data and have potential for use in individual care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03099-x. Springer International Publishing 2022-02-03 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9188490/ /pubmed/35113307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03099-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Ruseckaite, Rasa
Bavor, Claire
Marsh, Lucy
Dean, Joanne
Daly, Oliver
Vasiliadis, Dora
Ahern, Susannah
Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures
title Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures
title_full Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures
title_fullStr Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures
title_short Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures
title_sort evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9188490/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35113307
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03099-x
work_keys_str_mv AT ruseckaiterasa evaluationoftheacceptabilityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinwomenfollowingpelvicfloorprocedures
AT bavorclaire evaluationoftheacceptabilityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinwomenfollowingpelvicfloorprocedures
AT marshlucy evaluationoftheacceptabilityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinwomenfollowingpelvicfloorprocedures
AT deanjoanne evaluationoftheacceptabilityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinwomenfollowingpelvicfloorprocedures
AT dalyoliver evaluationoftheacceptabilityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinwomenfollowingpelvicfloorprocedures
AT vasiliadisdora evaluationoftheacceptabilityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinwomenfollowingpelvicfloorprocedures
AT ahernsusannah evaluationoftheacceptabilityofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinwomenfollowingpelvicfloorprocedures