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. Evans

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)687-694
Number of pages8
JournalQuality of Life Research
Volume28
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Mar 2018

Keywords

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

Cite this

@article{73eb0d50df6849929f4b3526f220fc31,
title = "A randomised controlled trial comparing completeness of responses of three methods of collecting patient-reported outcome measures in men diagnosed with prostate cancer",
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 = "Data collection methods, Email, Intention to treat, Patient-reported outcomes, Postal, Randomised controlled trial, Telephone",
author = "Hoque, {Dewan Md Emdadul} and Arul Earnest and Rasa Ruseckaite and Paula Lorgelly and Fanny Sampurno and Melanie Evans and Evans, {Sue M.}",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-018-2061-7",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "687--694",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "3",

}

A randomised controlled trial comparing completeness of responses of three methods of collecting patient-reported outcome measures in men diagnosed with prostate cancer. / Hoque, Dewan Md Emdadul; Earnest, Arul; Ruseckaite, Rasa; Lorgelly, Paula; Sampurno, Fanny; Evans, Melanie; Evans, Sue M.

In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, 15.03.2018, p. 687-694.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

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

VL - 28

SP - 687

EP - 694

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 3

ER -