Veenoo Agarwal1, Nadia Corsini2,3, Marion C Eckert2,3, Greg Sharplin2,3, Imogen Ramsey2,3, Kate Gunn3, Michael K Fitzgerald4,5, Bogda Koczwara4,5. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University and Flinders Medical Centre Adelaide, Flinders Drive, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia. veenoo@hotmail.com. 2. Cancer Council South Australia, Greenhill Rd, Eastwood, Australia. 3. University of South Australia, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, 5000, Australia. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University and Flinders Medical Centre Adelaide, Flinders Drive, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia. 5. South Australian Cancer Service, Central Adelaide Local Health Network, South Australian Health, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: To determine feasibility and acceptability of completing PROs questionnaires at completion and 1 year after curative cancer treatment. METHODS: Patients assessed in a nurse-led end of treatment survivorship clinic, at a tertiary referral centre, recruited between October 2015 and July 2016 were mailed a survey at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. The survey included validated PRO questionnaires. A target response rate for feasibility, defined as the proportion of the eligible population approached that completed the survey, was set at 70%. Qualitative feedback regarding the survey was collected from participants. RESULTS: Of the 47 eligible patients approached, 34 (72.4%) agreed to participate with 29 (61.9%) completing the survey at baseline, and 21 (44.7%) at follow-up. Respondents lost to follow-up at 12 months had clinically meaningful lower scores on all QLQ-C30 functioning scales and 8 out of 9 symptom scales/items. Qualitative feedback from survey respondents indicated the content was relevant and acceptable. Participants expressed willingness to complete a similar survey approximately once per year and a higher preference for completing the survey in hard copy compared with online. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors are willing to provide information on a range of PROs, but those with higher needs were the ones less likely to complete surveys. There is scope to improve the response rate and representativeness of the patient cohort captured. Future research should identify strategies to optimise recruitment when collecting PROs data from cancer survivors.
AIM: To determine feasibility and acceptability of completing PROs questionnaires at completion and 1 year after curative cancer treatment. METHODS:Patients assessed in a nurse-led end of treatment survivorship clinic, at a tertiary referral centre, recruited between October 2015 and July 2016 were mailed a survey at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. The survey included validated PRO questionnaires. A target response rate for feasibility, defined as the proportion of the eligible population approached that completed the survey, was set at 70%. Qualitative feedback regarding the survey was collected from participants. RESULTS: Of the 47 eligible patients approached, 34 (72.4%) agreed to participate with 29 (61.9%) completing the survey at baseline, and 21 (44.7%) at follow-up. Respondents lost to follow-up at 12 months had clinically meaningful lower scores on all QLQ-C30 functioning scales and 8 out of 9 symptom scales/items. Qualitative feedback from survey respondents indicated the content was relevant and acceptable. Participants expressed willingness to complete a similar survey approximately once per year and a higher preference for completing the survey in hard copy compared with online. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer survivors are willing to provide information on a range of PROs, but those with higher needs were the ones less likely to complete surveys. There is scope to improve the response rate and representativeness of the patient cohort captured. Future research should identify strategies to optimise recruitment when collecting PROs data from cancer survivors.
Authors: E Greimel; A Bottomley; A Cull; A-C Waldenstrom; J Arraras; L Chauvenet; B Holzner; K Kuljanic; J Lebrec; S D'haese Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: M A Sprangers; M Groenvold; J I Arraras; J Franklin; A te Velde; M Muller; L Franzini; A Williams; H C de Haes; P Hopwood; A Cull; N K Aaronson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Nicole Horevoorts; Mies van Eenbergen; Johan Denollet; Jan Anne Roukema; Neil K Aaronson; Ad Vingerhoets; Jan Willem Coebergh; Jolanda de Vries; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Floortje Mols Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: R N Whistance; T Conroy; W Chie; A Costantini; O Sezer; M Koller; C D Johnson; S A Pilkington; J Arraras; E Ben-Josef; A M Pullyblank; P Fayers; J M Blazeby Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J M Blazeby; T Conroy; E Hammerlid; P Fayers; O Sezer; M Koller; J Arraras; A Bottomley; C W Vickery; P L Etienne; D Alderson Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Neeraj K Arora; Ann S Hamilton; Arnold L Potosky; Julia H Rowland; Noreen M Aziz; Keith M Bellizzi; Carrie N Klabunde; Wendy McLaughlin; Jennifer Stevens Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Laura Ashley; Helen Jones; James Thomas; Alex Newsham; Amy Downing; Eva Morris; Julia Brown; Galina Velikova; David Forman; Penny Wright Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 5.428