Dataset Information

Data Quality of Longitudinally Collected Patient-Reported Outcomes After Thoracic Surgery: Comparison of Paper- and Web-Based Assessments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High-frequency patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments are used to measure patients' symptoms after surgery for surgical research; however, the quality of those longitudinal PRO data has seldom been discussed.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine data quality-influencing factors and to profile error trajectories of data longitudinally collected via paper-and-pencil (P&P) or web-based assessment (electronic PRO [ePRO]) after thoracic surgery.

Methods

We extracted longitudinal PRO data with 678 patients scheduled for lung surgery from an observational study (n=512) and a randomized clinical trial (n=166) on the evaluation of different perioperative care strategies. PROs were assessed by the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Lung Cancer Module and single-item Quality of Life Scale before surgery and then daily after surgery until discharge or up to 14 days of hospitalization. Patient compliance and data error were identified and compared between P&P and ePRO. Generalized estimating equations model and 2-piecewise model were used to describe trajectories of error incidence over time and to identify the risk factors.

Results

Among 678 patients, 629 with at least 2 PRO assessments, 440 completed 3347 P&P assessments and 189 completed 1291 ePRO assessments. In total, 49.4% of patients had at least one error, including (1) missing items (64.69%, 1070/1654), (2) modifications without signatures (27.99%, 463/1654), (3) selection of multiple options (3.02%, 50/1654), (4) missing patient signatures (2.54%, 42/1654), (5) missing researcher signatures (1.45%, 24/1654), and (6) missing completion dates (0.30%, 5/1654). Patients who completed ePRO had fewer errors than those who completed P&P assessments (ePRO: 30.2% [57/189] vs. P&P: 57.7% [254/440]; P<.001). Compared with ePRO patients, those using P&P were older, less educated, and sicker. Common risk factors of having errors were a lower education level (P&P: odds ratio [OR] 1.39, 95% CI 1.20-1.62; P<.001; ePRO: OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22-2.72; P=.003), treated in a provincial hospital (P&P: OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.10-5.33; P<.001; ePRO: OR 4.73, 95% CI 2.18-10.25; P<.001), and with severe disease (P&P: OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.33-1.99; P<.001; ePRO: OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.53-4.75; P<.001). Errors peaked on postoperative day (POD) 1 for P&P, and on POD 2 for ePRO.

Conclusions

It is possible to improve data quality of longitudinally collected PRO through ePRO, compared with P&P. However, ePRO-related sampling bias needs to be considered when designing clinical research using longitudinal PROs as major outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Yu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8663677 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundShared decision making to guide treatment of localized prostate cancer requires delivery of the anticipated quality of life (QOL) outcomes of contemporary treatment options (including radical prostatectomy [RP], intensity-modulated radiation therapy [RT], and active surveillance [AS]). Predicting these QOL outcomes based on personalized features is necessary.ObjectiveTo create an easy-to-use tool to predict personalized sexual, urinary, bowel, and hormonal function outcomes after RP, RT, and AS.Design, setting, and participantsA prospective, population-based cohort study was conducted utilizing US cancer registries of 2563 men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in 2011-2012.InterventionPatient-reported urinary, sexual, and bowel function up to 5 yr after treatment.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPatient-reported urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal function through 5 yr after treatment were collected using the 26-item Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire. Comprehensive models to predict domain scores were fit, which included age, race, D'Amico classification, body mass index, EPIC-26 baseline function, treatment, and standardized scores measuring comorbidity, general QOL, and psychosocial health. We reduced these models by removing the instrument scores and replacing D'Amico classification with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Gleason score. For the final model, we performed bootstrap internal validation to assess model calibration from which an easy-to-use web-based tool was developed.Results and limitationsThe prediction models achieved bias-corrected R-squared values of 0.386, 0.232, 0.183, 0.214, and 0.309 for sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritative, bowel, and hormonal domains, respectively. Differences in R-squared values between the comprehensive and parsimonious models were small in magnitude. Calibration was excellent. The web-based tool is available at https://statez.shinyapps.io/PCDSPred/.ConclusionsFunctional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer can be predicted at the time of diagnosis based on age, race, PSA, biopsy grade, baseline function, and a general question regarding overall health. Providers and patients can use this prediction tool to inform shared decision making.Patient summaryIn this report, we studied patient-reported sexual, urinary, hormonal, and bowel function through 5 yr after treatment with radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. We developed a web-based predictive tool that can be used to predict one's outcomes after treatment based on age, race, prostate-specific antigen, biopsy grade, pretreatment baseline function, and a general question regarding overall health. We hope both patients and providers can use this tool to better understand expected outcomes after treatment, further enhancing shared decision making between providers and patients.