Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 687–694 | Cite as

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
  • Arul Earnest
  • Rasa Ruseckaite
  • Paula Lorgelly
  • Fanny Sampurno
  • Melanie Evans
  • Sue M. EvansEmail author
Brief Communication

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Patient-reported outcomes Randomised controlled trial Data collection methods Intention to treat Telephone Postal Email 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the willingness and support provided by the respondents and their family members. We would also like to thank our all the data collectors for their hard work and ensuring quality data.

Funding

Funding for this project has been provided to SME by a Monash Partners Academic Health Science Centre Clinical Fellowship Grant. DEH has received Monash International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (MIPRS) for tuition fees and Monash Graduate Scholarship (MGS) for living costs and Monash ID: 25762931 for the PhD program. Data involved in this publication have been obtained from the Prostate Cancer Outcome Registry-Victoria, which is funded by Movember Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None declared except Sue Evans is coordinator of the Prostate Cancer Outcome Registry—Australia and New Zealand (PCOR-ANZ).

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was built on an existing project, which received Ethical approval, by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee for enrolment of prostate cancer patients in PCOR VIC (Approval Number CF09/0931–2,009,000,436). We obtained separate approval for our study from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval Number CF15/4157-2015001762).

Informed consent

Men who participated in this study were part of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry which has an opt out consent process. Men are sent an explanatory statement, which details the process for opting out and use of data for research purposes. As men are being contacted as part of the registry a waiver of consent for this study was provided to enable men to be randomised to one of the three arms, verbal consent for this was obtained at initial contact with the patient.

Supplementary material

11136_2018_2061_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1027 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Basch, E. (2014). New frontiers in patient-reported outcomes: Adverse event reporting, comparative effectiveness, and quality assessment. Annual Review of Medicine, 65, 307–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ, 346, f167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weldring, T., & Smith, S. M. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Services Insights, 6, 61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 InstituteGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ritter, P., Lorig, K., Laurent, D., & Matthews, K. (2004). Internet versus mailed questionnaires: A randomized comparison. Journal of Medical Internet Research.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e29 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.
  18. 18.
    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.
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken: WileyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DEPM, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, The Alfred CentreMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.International Centre for Diarrhoeal Diseases Research in Bangladesh (icddr,b)DhakaBangladesh
  3. 3.Office of Health EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations