TY - JOUR
T1 - A randomised controlled trial comparing completeness of responses of three methods of collecting patient-reported outcome measures in men diagnosed with prostate cancer
AU - Hoque, Dewan Md Emdadul
AU - Earnest, Arul
AU - Ruseckaite, Rasa
AU - Lorgelly, Paula
AU - Sampurno, Fanny
AU - Evans, Melanie
AU - Evans, Sue M.
PY - 2018/3/15
Y1 - 2018/3/15
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Data collection methods
KW - Email
KW - Intention to treat
KW - Patient-reported outcomes
KW - Postal
KW - Randomised controlled trial
KW - Telephone
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057336728&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11136-018-2061-7
DO - 10.1007/s11136-018-2061-7
M3 - Article
C2 - 30478597
AN - SCOPUS:85057336728
SN - 0962-9343
VL - 28
SP - 687
EP - 694
JO - Quality of Life Research
JF - Quality of Life Research
IS - 3
ER -