International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Satisfaction: psychometric testing of a new patient-reported outcome measure for the evaluation of satisfaction after urological surgery.
patient-reported outcome
satisfaction
surgery
urology
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
23
4
2020
medline:
18
12
2020
entrez:
23
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the psychometric properties of a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Satisfaction (ICIQ-S), to assess satisfaction after urological surgery. Following item development, the developmental ICIQ-S (dICIQ-S) was used within in a randomised control trial comparing two types of surgery for male prostatic obstruction at 1.5, 3, and 12 months after surgery. Reliability was assessed by Cronbach's α and construct validity by the correlation of scores with concurrently administered PROMs of known validity: ICIQ-Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), International Prostate Symptom Score, and the ICIQ-LUTS Quality of Life. A total of 410 men were included in the trial. Missing data was generally low for the dICIQ-S [mean (range) 1.6 (<1-3.1)%] except for the items 'complications' 6.8% and 'satisfaction with sex-life' 9.2%. High ceiling effects were found in all items. Factor analysis identified six items related to surgical outcomes (Cronbach's α 0.89), which have formed the scored part of the ICIQ-S, together with a standalone overall satisfaction item, scored 0-10. Seven additional unscored items, related to satisfaction with experiences and expectations, were also retained. As hypothesised, post-surgery dICIQ-S scores were correlated with reduced symptoms and improved quality of life as measured by the concurrent PROMs. The results support the validity and reliability of a scored six-item domain for evaluating satisfaction with surgical outcomes, together with a standalone scored overall satisfaction item. The further unscored seven standalone items are anticipated to be used as the basis for adaptation and further validation of the ICIQ-S in different patient populations.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
286-291Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 12/35/15
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Bjertnaes OA, Sjetne IS, Iversen HH. Overall patient satisfaction with hospitals: effects of patient-reported experiences and fulfilment of expectations. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21: 39-46
Sixma HJ, Kerssens JJ, Campen CV, Peters L. Quality of care from the patients’ perspective: from theoretical concept to a new measuring instrument. Health Expect 1998; 1: 82-95
Al-Abri R, Al-Balushi A. Patient satisfaction survey as a tool towards quality improvement. Oman Med J. 2014; 29: 3-7
Urden LD. Patient satisfaction measurement: current issues and implications. Outcomes Manag 2002; 6: 125-31
Akakpo W, Pineda MA, Burnett AL. Critical analysis of satisfaction assessment after penile prosthesis surgery. Sex Med Rev 2017; 5: 244-51
Mishriki SF, Grimsley SJ, Nabi G, Martindale A, Cohen NP. Improved quality of life and enhanced satisfaction after TURP: prospective 12-year follow-up study. Urology 2008; 72: 322-6
Freeman R, Holmes D, Hillard T et al. What patients think: patient-reported outcomes of retropubic versus trans-obturator mid-urethral slings for urodynamic stress incontinence-a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecology J 2011; 22: 279-86
Robinson D, Anders K, Cardozo L et al. What do women want? Interpretation of the concept of cure. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2003; 9: 273
Castro Diaz D, Robinson D, Bosch R et al. Patient-Reported Outcome Assessment. In Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wein A eds, Incontinence, 6th Edition 2017: International Consultation on Incontinence, September 2016. Tokyo: International Continence Society, 2017: 541-99
Abrams P, Avery K, Gardener N, Donovan J; ICIQ Advisory Board. The International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire: www.iciq.net. J Urol 2006; 175: 1063-6
Kerr C, Nixon A, Wild D. Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010; 10: 269-81
Worthington J, Taylor H, Abrams P et al. A randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the National Health Service (NHS) - the UNBLOCS trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2017; 17: 179
Donovan JL, Abrams P, Peters TJ et al. The ICS-’BPH’Study: the psychometric validity and reliability of the ICSmale questionnaire. Br J Urol 1996; 77: 554-62
Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, O’Leary MP et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol 1992; 148: 1549-57
Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S. A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 1374-9
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH The assessment of reliability. In: Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH, Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. New York, USA:McGraw-Hill Inc., 1994: 248-92.
Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2013; 9: 79-94
Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 1993; 2: 441-9
Marschall-Kehrel D, Roberts RG, Brubaker L. Patient-reported outcomes in overactive bladder: the influence of perception of condition and expectation for treatment benefit. Urology 2006; 68: 29-37
Yellen E, Davis GC, Ricard R. The measurement of patient satisfaction. J Nurs Care Qual 2002; 16: 23-9
FDA. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009
Bowling A. Measuring health: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales, 3rd edn. Maidenhead, Berkshire; New York, NY: Open University Press, 2004: 224
Kane RL, MacIejewski M, Finch M. The relationship of patient satisfaction with care and clinical outcomes. Med Care 1997; 35: 714-30