Patients' experiences of completing patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials: An interview study

Louise Dorner Østergaard MScN, PhD Student, Birgitte Nørgaard MScN, PhD, Malene Eiberg Holm MScN, PhD Student, Ann-Kirstine Hansen MScN, Lars Lund MD, Mads Hvid Poulsen MD, PhD
{"title":"Patients' experiences of completing patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials: An interview study","authors":"Louise Dorner Østergaard MScN, PhD Student,&nbsp;Birgitte Nørgaard MScN, PhD,&nbsp;Malene Eiberg Holm MScN, PhD Student,&nbsp;Ann-Kirstine Hansen MScN,&nbsp;Lars Lund MD,&nbsp;Mads Hvid Poulsen MD, PhD","doi":"10.1111/ijun.12363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study aimed to gain insight into how older men diagnosed with prostate cancer experience responding to ePRO about their quality of life in a clinical trial as well as what motivates and demotivates them in the process. Drop-outs in patient-reported outcome studies are a well-known challenge that influence both the reliability and validity of clinical trials. Furthermore, retaining older people in electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) studies has proven difficult. This study was based on qualitative semi-structured interviews with 13 male patients. The interviews were conducted between April and May 2022 and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the interview inductively using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis. Resulting in five core themes among participants' responses: (1) the ePRO frame is feasible, (2) it is challenging to rate one's life on a scale, (3) increased disease insight, (4) unmet expectations of emotional support, and (5) from motivation to demotivation. The informants were motivated primarily by the idea of helping with new knowledge, but also because ePRO was seen as easy to use and access from home. They were further motivated by the new knowledge they gained through ePRO about symptoms and the possibility to follow their own progress. However, relating to their own quality of life creates an expectation that nurses and doctors will do the same in their treatment, and when this does not happen, the initial motivation turns into demotivation as ePRO knowledge was not used to tailor their treatment and follow-up. In conclusion, older men can participate in ePRO. They are motivated by helping with new knowledge, the ability to answer ePRO from home, and the insights they gain from the questionnaire. They lose motivation when their responses are not used to tailor their disease management.</p>","PeriodicalId":50281,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Urological Nursing","volume":"17 3","pages":"180-187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijun.12363","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Urological Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijun.12363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to gain insight into how older men diagnosed with prostate cancer experience responding to ePRO about their quality of life in a clinical trial as well as what motivates and demotivates them in the process. Drop-outs in patient-reported outcome studies are a well-known challenge that influence both the reliability and validity of clinical trials. Furthermore, retaining older people in electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) studies has proven difficult. This study was based on qualitative semi-structured interviews with 13 male patients. The interviews were conducted between April and May 2022 and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the interview inductively using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis. Resulting in five core themes among participants' responses: (1) the ePRO frame is feasible, (2) it is challenging to rate one's life on a scale, (3) increased disease insight, (4) unmet expectations of emotional support, and (5) from motivation to demotivation. The informants were motivated primarily by the idea of helping with new knowledge, but also because ePRO was seen as easy to use and access from home. They were further motivated by the new knowledge they gained through ePRO about symptoms and the possibility to follow their own progress. However, relating to their own quality of life creates an expectation that nurses and doctors will do the same in their treatment, and when this does not happen, the initial motivation turns into demotivation as ePRO knowledge was not used to tailor their treatment and follow-up. In conclusion, older men can participate in ePRO. They are motivated by helping with new knowledge, the ability to answer ePRO from home, and the insights they gain from the questionnaire. They lose motivation when their responses are not used to tailor their disease management.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床试验中患者完成患者报告结果的经历:一项访谈研究
这项研究旨在深入了解在临床试验中被诊断患有前列腺癌的老年男性对ePRO的生活质量的反应,以及在这个过程中是什么激励和使他们失去动力。患者报告结果研究的退出是影响临床试验可靠性和有效性的一个众所周知的挑战。此外,在电子患者报告结果(ePRO)研究中保留老年人已被证明是困难的。本研究基于对13名男性患者的定性半结构化访谈。采访在2022年4月至5月期间进行,并逐字录音和转录。我们运用Braun和Clark的主题分析法对访谈进行归纳分析。在参与者的回答中产生了五个核心主题:(1)ePRO框架是可行的,(2)在量表上评价一个人的生活是具有挑战性的,(3)提高疾病洞察力,(4)未满足的情感支持期望,以及(5)从动机到动机。举报人的动机主要是帮助获得新知识的想法,但也因为ePRO被认为易于使用和在家访问。他们通过ePRO获得了关于症状的新知识,并有可能跟踪自己的进展,这进一步激励了他们。然而,考虑到患者自身的生活质量,他们产生了一种期望,即护士和医生在治疗中也会这样做,当这种情况没有发生时,最初的动机就会变成失去动力,因为ePRO知识没有被用于定制他们的治疗和随访。综上所述,老年男性可以参加ePRO。他们的动机是帮助学习新知识,在家回答ePRO的能力,以及他们从问卷中获得的见解。当他们的反应不能用于调整他们的疾病管理时,他们就失去了动力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Urological Nursing is an international peer-reviewed Journal for all nurses, non-specialist and specialist, who care for individuals with urological disorders. It is relevant for nurses working in a variety of settings: inpatient care, outpatient care, ambulatory care, community care, operating departments and specialist clinics. The Journal covers the whole spectrum of urological nursing skills and knowledge. It supports the publication of local issues of relevance to a wider international community to disseminate good practice. The International Journal of Urological Nursing is clinically focused, evidence-based and welcomes contributions in the following clinical and non-clinical areas: -General Urology- Continence care- Oncology- Andrology- Stoma care- Paediatric urology- Men’s health- Uro-gynaecology- Reconstructive surgery- Clinical audit- Clinical governance- Nurse-led services- Reflective analysis- Education- Management- Research- Leadership The Journal welcomes original research papers, practice development papers and literature reviews. It also invites shorter papers such as case reports, critical commentary, reflective analysis and reports of audit, as well as contributions to regular sections such as the media reviews section. The International Journal of Urological Nursing supports the development of academic writing within the specialty and particularly welcomes papers from young researchers or practitioners who are seeking to build a publication profile.
期刊最新文献
The effects of continuous care utilizing rational emotive therapy on prostate cancer patients Knowledge and practices of nurses working in urology clinics on fluid–electrolyte monitoring and management Postoperative nursing in robot-assisted urologic surgery: Are there any platform-based differences? Adherence and uncertainty during rehabilitation for urinary incontinence: Validation of a scale Assessing the reliability and usefulness of ChatGPT responses on intermittent catheterization queries: A critical analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1