26-11-2018 | Brief Communication | Uitgave 3/2019
A randomised controlled trial comparing completeness of responses of three methods of collecting patient-reported outcome measures in men diagnosed with prostate cancer
- Tijdschrift:
- Quality of Life Research > Uitgave 3/2019
Belangrijke opmerkingen
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2061-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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.