Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University; Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Qual Life Res. 2022 Mar;31(3):855-864. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02940-z. Epub 2021 Jul 21.
This study investigates comments that prostate cancer patients spontaneously write in the margins of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Short Form (EPIC-26) questionnaire. We aim to show the possible barriers that patients face while answering the survey, and to consider how these barriers may affect the response data generated. We investigate the kind of information patients' comments on EPIC-26 contain, and patients' motivations to provide this information. We also study why some EPIC domains spark more comments than others.
We analyzed 28 pages of transcribed comments and four pages of supplementary letters from our survey participants (n = 496). Using inductive content analysis, we generated 10 categories describing the content of participants' comments, and four themes demonstrating their motives for commenting. The comments regarding each EPIC domain were quantified to discover any differences between domains.
The sexual domain of EPIC-26 provoked over half of all comments. Patients without recent sexual activity or desire had difficulties answering sexual function questions 8-10. The lack of instructions on whether to take erectile aid use into account when answering erectile function questions led to a diversity of answering strategies. Patients with urinary catheters could not find suitable answer options for questions 1-4. All domains sparked comments containing additional information about experienced symptoms.
Patients are mainly willing to report their symptoms, but a lack of suitable answer options causes missing data and differing answering strategies in the sexual and urinary domains of EPIC-26, weakening the quality of the response data received.
本研究调查了前列腺癌患者在扩展前列腺癌指数简表(EPIC-26)问卷边缘自发写下的评论。我们旨在展示患者在回答调查时可能面临的障碍,并考虑这些障碍如何影响生成的应答数据。我们调查了患者在 EPIC-26 上的评论所包含的信息类型,以及患者提供这些信息的动机。我们还研究了为什么某些 EPIC 域会引发更多的评论。
我们分析了来自我们调查参与者(n=496)的 28 页转录评论和 4 页补充信件。使用归纳内容分析,我们生成了 10 个类别来描述参与者评论的内容,并展示了他们评论的四个主题。对每个 EPIC 域的评论进行了量化,以发现域之间的差异。
EPIC-26 的性领域引发了超过一半的所有评论。没有近期性行为或欲望的患者在回答性功能问题 8-10 时遇到困难。缺乏关于在回答勃起功能问题时是否考虑使用勃起辅助器具的说明,导致了各种不同的回答策略。使用导尿管的患者无法为问题 1-4 找到合适的答案选项。所有域都引发了包含所经历症状的附加信息的评论。
患者主要愿意报告他们的症状,但缺乏合适的答案选项会导致 EPIC-26 的性和尿域中缺失数据和不同的回答策略,削弱了收到的应答数据的质量。