Loading…

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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Quality of life research 2022-07, Vol.31 (7), p.2213-2221
Main Authors: Ruseckaite, Rasa, Bavor, Claire, Marsh, Lucy, Dean, Joanne, Daly, Oliver, Vasiliadis, Dora, Ahern, Susannah
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-689deaa8381f7a0bbe5c1ff1e8ccd2a0ab9f13164c12a19e803a35d61329fab03
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-689deaa8381f7a0bbe5c1ff1e8ccd2a0ab9f13164c12a19e803a35d61329fab03
container_end_page 2221
container_issue 7
container_start_page 2213
container_title Quality of life research
container_volume 31
creator Ruseckaite, Rasa
Bavor, Claire
Marsh, Lucy
Dean, Joanne
Daly, Oliver
Vasiliadis, Dora
Ahern, Susannah
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.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11136-022-03099-x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9188490</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2625271329</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-689deaa8381f7a0bbe5c1ff1e8ccd2a0ab9f13164c12a19e803a35d61329fab03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUlvFDEQhS0EIkPgD3BAlrhwMXjpzRckFIVFisQFzpbbXZ44ctuN7Z4k_z5uJoTlwKmkqu-9qtJD6CWjbxml_bvMGBMdoZwTKqiU5OYR2rG2F4R3jXyMdlR2nEjRiBP0LOcrSukgKX-KTkRblYL2OxTPD9qvurgYcLS4XALWxsBS9Oi8K7dbc6ljCIUkWGIqMOG4FhNnwDPovCbI2AV8XRsB2-h9vHZhjxfwB2ew9TEmvKRoYNrQ5-iJ1T7Di_t6ir5_PP929plcfP305ezDBTFN3xTSDXICrQcxMNtrOo7QGmYtg8GYiWuqR2mZYF1jGNdMwkCFFu3UMcGl1SMVp-j90XdZxxkmU-9P2qsluVmnWxW1U39PgrtU-3hQkg1DIzeDN_cGKf5YIRc1u2zAex0grlnxjre83_ZV9PU_6FVcU6jvVaqvVMPbzZAfKZNizgnswzGMqi1PdcxT1TzVzzzVTRW9-vONB8mvACsgjkCuo7CH9Hv3f2zvAHaTr5U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2675274250</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures</title><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Ruseckaite, Rasa ; Bavor, Claire ; Marsh, Lucy ; Dean, Joanne ; Daly, Oliver ; Vasiliadis, Dora ; Ahern, Susannah</creator><creatorcontrib>Ruseckaite, Rasa ; Bavor, Claire ; Marsh, Lucy ; Dean, Joanne ; Daly, Oliver ; Vasiliadis, Dora ; Ahern, Susannah</creatorcontrib><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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0962-9343</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-2649</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11136-022-03099-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35113307</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Clinical outcomes ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Pelvis ; Public Health ; Quality of Life Research ; Sociology ; Urinary incontinence</subject><ispartof>Quality of life research, 2022-07, Vol.31 (7), p.2213-2221</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s).</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-689deaa8381f7a0bbe5c1ff1e8ccd2a0ab9f13164c12a19e803a35d61329fab03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-689deaa8381f7a0bbe5c1ff1e8ccd2a0ab9f13164c12a19e803a35d61329fab03</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9078-2696</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2675274250/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2675274250?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,11688,27924,27925,36060,36061,44363,74895</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35113307$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ruseckaite, Rasa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bavor, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marsh, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dean, Joanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daly, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vasiliadis, Dora</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahern, Susannah</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures</title><title>Quality of life research</title><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><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.</description><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Pelvis</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Urinary incontinence</subject><issn>0962-9343</issn><issn>1573-2649</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUlvFDEQhS0EIkPgD3BAlrhwMXjpzRckFIVFisQFzpbbXZ44ctuN7Z4k_z5uJoTlwKmkqu-9qtJD6CWjbxml_bvMGBMdoZwTKqiU5OYR2rG2F4R3jXyMdlR2nEjRiBP0LOcrSukgKX-KTkRblYL2OxTPD9qvurgYcLS4XALWxsBS9Oi8K7dbc6ljCIUkWGIqMOG4FhNnwDPovCbI2AV8XRsB2-h9vHZhjxfwB2ew9TEmvKRoYNrQ5-iJ1T7Di_t6ir5_PP929plcfP305ezDBTFN3xTSDXICrQcxMNtrOo7QGmYtg8GYiWuqR2mZYF1jGNdMwkCFFu3UMcGl1SMVp-j90XdZxxkmU-9P2qsluVmnWxW1U39PgrtU-3hQkg1DIzeDN_cGKf5YIRc1u2zAex0grlnxjre83_ZV9PU_6FVcU6jvVaqvVMPbzZAfKZNizgnswzGMqi1PdcxT1TzVzzzVTRW9-vONB8mvACsgjkCuo7CH9Hv3f2zvAHaTr5U</recordid><startdate>20220701</startdate><enddate>20220701</enddate><creator>Ruseckaite, Rasa</creator><creator>Bavor, Claire</creator><creator>Marsh, Lucy</creator><creator>Dean, Joanne</creator><creator>Daly, Oliver</creator><creator>Vasiliadis, Dora</creator><creator>Ahern, Susannah</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9078-2696</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220701</creationdate><title>Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures</title><author>Ruseckaite, Rasa ; Bavor, Claire ; Marsh, Lucy ; Dean, Joanne ; Daly, Oliver ; Vasiliadis, Dora ; Ahern, Susannah</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-689deaa8381f7a0bbe5c1ff1e8ccd2a0ab9f13164c12a19e803a35d61329fab03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Pelvis</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Urinary incontinence</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ruseckaite, Rasa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bavor, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marsh, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dean, Joanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daly, Oliver</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vasiliadis, Dora</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahern, Susannah</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest_Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology Journals</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ruseckaite, Rasa</au><au>Bavor, Claire</au><au>Marsh, Lucy</au><au>Dean, Joanne</au><au>Daly, Oliver</au><au>Vasiliadis, Dora</au><au>Ahern, Susannah</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures</atitle><jtitle>Quality of life research</jtitle><stitle>Qual Life Res</stitle><addtitle>Qual Life Res</addtitle><date>2022-07-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>2213</spage><epage>2221</epage><pages>2213-2221</pages><issn>0962-9343</issn><eissn>1573-2649</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>35113307</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11136-022-03099-x</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9078-2696</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0962-9343
ispartof Quality of life research, 2022-07, Vol.31 (7), p.2213-2221
issn 0962-9343
1573-2649
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9188490
source ABI/INFORM Global; Springer Link
subjects Clinical outcomes
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Pelvis
Public Health
Quality of Life Research
Sociology
Urinary incontinence
title Evaluation of the acceptability of patient-reported outcome measures in women following pelvic floor procedures
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T04%3A37%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20the%20acceptability%20of%20patient-reported%20outcome%20measures%20in%20women%20following%20pelvic%20floor%20procedures&rft.jtitle=Quality%20of%20life%20research&rft.au=Ruseckaite,%20Rasa&rft.date=2022-07-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=2213&rft.epage=2221&rft.pages=2213-2221&rft.issn=0962-9343&rft.eissn=1573-2649&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11136-022-03099-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2625271329%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-689deaa8381f7a0bbe5c1ff1e8ccd2a0ab9f13164c12a19e803a35d61329fab03%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2675274250&rft_id=info:pmid/35113307&rfr_iscdi=true