Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Williams N
    Curr Biol, 2007 Apr 17;17(8):R261.
    PMID: 17486700
  2. Sepucha KR, Matlock DD, Wills CE, Ropka M, Joseph-Williams N, Stacey D, et al.
    Med Decis Making, 2014 07;34(5):560-6.
    PMID: 24713692 DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14528381
    BACKGROUND: This review systematically appraises the quality of reporting of measures used in trials to evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and presents recommendations for minimum reporting standards.

    METHODS: We reviewed measures of decision quality and decision process in 86 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of PtDAs. Data on development of the measures, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, feasibility, and acceptability were independently abstracted by 2 reviewers.

    RESULTS: Information from 178 instances of use of measures was abstracted. Very few studies reported data on the performance of measures, with reliability (21%) and validity (16%) being the most common. Studies using new measures were less likely to include information about their psychometric performance. The review was limited to reporting of measures in studies included in the Cochrane review and did not consult prior publications.

    CONCLUSIONS: Very little is reported about the development or performance of measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of PtDAs in published trials. Minimum reporting standards are proposed to enable authors to prepare study reports, editors and reviewers to evaluate submitted papers, and readers to appraise published studies.

  3. Tan WS, Teo CH, Chan D, Heinrich M, Feber A, Sarpong R, et al.
    BJU Int, 2019 09;124(3):408-417.
    PMID: 30694612 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14690
    OBJECTIVES: To determine the minimal accepted sensitivity (MAS) of a urine biomarker that patients are willing to accept to replace cystoscopy and to assess qualitatively their views and reasons.

    PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were part of a prospective multicentre observational study recruiting people with bladder cancer for a urine biomarker study (DETECT II; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781428). A mixed-methods approach comprising (1) a questionnaire to assess patients' experience with cystoscopy and patients' preference for cystoscopy vs urinary biomarker, and (2) semi-structured interviews to understand patient views, choice and reasons for their preference.

    RESULTS: A urine biomarker with an MAS of 90% would be accepted by 75.8% of patients. This was despite a high self-reported prevalence of haematuria (51.0%), dysuria/lower urinary tract symptoms (69.1%) and urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics (25.8%). There was no association between MAS with patient demographics, adverse events experienced, cancer characteristics or distance of patients' home to hospital. The qualitative analysis suggested that patients acknowledge that cystoscopy is invasive, embarrassing and associated with adverse events but are willing to tolerate the procedure because of its high sensitivity. Patients have confidence in cystoscopy and appreciate the visual diagnosis of cancer. Both low- and high-risk patients would consider a biomarker with a reported sensitivity similar to that of cystoscopy.

    CONCLUSION: Patients value the high sensitivity of cystoscopy despite the reported discomfort and adverse events experienced after it. The sensitivity of a urinary biomarker must be close to cystoscopy to gain patients' acceptance.

  4. Tan WS, Teo CH, Chan D, Ang KM, Heinrich M, Feber A, et al.
    BJU Int, 2020 05;125(5):669-678.
    PMID: 31975539 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15008
    OBJECTIVE: To determine patient experience and perception following a diagnosis of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).

    PATIENT AND METHODS: Patients were part of a prospective multicentre observational study recruiting patients with NMIBC for a urine biomarker study (DETECT II; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781428). A mixed-methods approach comprising: (i) the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Brief-IPQ) and (ii) semi-structured interviews to explore patients' experience of having haematuria, and initial and subsequent experience with a NMIBC diagnosis. Both assessments were completed at 6 months after NMIBC diagnosis.

    RESULTS: A total of 213 patients completed the Brief-IPQ. Patients felt that they had minimal symptoms (median [interquartile range, IQR] score 2 [0-5]) and were not particularly affected emotionally (median [IQR] score 3 [1-6]) with a minimal effect to their daily life (median [IQR] score 2 [0-5]). However, they remained concerned about their cancer diagnosis (median [IQR] score 5 [3-8]) and felt that they had no personal control over the cancer (median [IQR] score 2 [2-5]) and believed that their illness would affect them for some time (median [IQR] score 6 [3-10]). A significant association with a lower personal control of the disease (P 70 years. Many patients were uncertain about the cause of bladder cancer. Qualitative analysis found that at initial presentation of haematuria, most patients were not aware of the risk of bladder cancer. Patients were most anxious and psychologically affected between the interval of cystoscopy diagnosis and transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Following TURBT, most patients were positive about their cancer prognosis.

    CONCLUSION: Patients with NMIBC have a poor perception of disease control and believe that their disease will continue over a prolonged period of time. This is particularly more pertinent in the elderly. Patients are most psychologically affected during the interval between cancer diagnosis following cystoscopy and TURBT. Health awareness about bladder cancer remained poor with a significant number of patients unaware of the causes of bladder cancer. Psychological support and prompt TURBT following bladder cancer diagnosis would help improve the mental health of patients with NMIBC.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links