Abstract
Abstract
Background
The Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR) captures clinical and surgical data in women undergoing pelvic floor procedures. The inclusion of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the APFPR is a critical activity providing the additional patient perspective of their condition prior to surgery as well as monitoring beyond the usual post-surgical follow-up time. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of seven PROMs for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to determine the most suitable instrument for the APFPR.
Methods
Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with women with POP (n = 15) and their treating clinicians (n = 11) in Victoria, Australia. Interview topics covered appropriateness, content, and acceptability of seven POP-specific instruments identified through the literature to determine their suitability and acceptability for inclusion in the APFPR. We analysed the interview data using conventional content analysis.
Results
All study participants agreed that PROMs were needed for the APFPR. Both women and clinicians suggested that some of the instruments were ambiguous, too long and confusing. The Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire was accepted widely amongst women and clinicians and recommended for inclusion in the APFPR. All participants agreed it would be appropriate to capture PROMs before surgery, and then followed up post-surgically. Email, phone call or postal mail-out were the preferred options for PROMs data collection.
Conclusion
Most women and clinicians supported incorporating PROMs in the APFPR. Study participants believed that capturing PROMs would have potential use in individual care and improve outcomes of women with POP.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference37 articles.
1. Mathieson R, Kippen R, Manning T, Brennan J. Stress urinary incontinence in the mesh complication era: current australian trends. BJU Int. 2021;128(1):95–102.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4(1):79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-79.
3. Daly J, Ahern S, Herkes R, O’Connell H. The Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry: not before time. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59:473–6.
4. Ruseckaite R, Maharaj AD, Dean J, Krysinska K, Ackerman IN, Brennan AL, et al. Preliminary development of recommendations for the inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical quality registries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):276.
5. Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA. M L. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. 3rd edition. Two volumes. (Prepared by the Outcome DEcIDE Center [Outcome Sciences, Inc., a Quintiles company] under Contract No. 290 2005 00351 TO7.) AHRQ Publication No.13(14)-EHC111. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2014. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/420/1897/registries-guide-3rd-edition-vol-1-140430.pdf. 2014.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献