Ensuring comprehensive assessment of urinary problems in prostate cancer through patient-physician concordance

David E. Victorson, Penny S. Brucker, Rita K. Bode, David T Eton, James A. Talcott, Jack A. Clark, Sara J. Knight, Mark S. Litwin, Carol M. Moinpour, Bryce B. Reeve, Neil K. Aaronson, Charles L. Bennett, Harry W. Herr, Michael McGuire, Daniel Shevrin, Kevin McVary, David Cella

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the concordance between clinicians and men diagnosed with prostate cancer on a clinician-derived pathophysiological classification of the following self-reported urinary complications: storage (irritative), voiding (obstructive), and leakage/incontinence. Materials and methods: Fourteen urology experts classified 37 urinary function questionnaire items into 3 primary conceptual dimensions (e.g., storage [irritative], voiding [obstructive] and urinary leakage/incontinence) that would best reflect each item's content. In addition, 218 patient participants provided responses to the 37 items. Using classifications by experts to develop the conceptual framework, the structure was tested using confirmatory factor analyses with patient data. Results: Expert consensus was achieved in the classification of 31 out of 37 items. Using the 3-factor conceptual framework and patient data, the fit indices for the overall correlated factor model suggested an acceptable overall model fit. The analyses of the separate domains showed acceptable fit for the storage/irritative domain and the leaking/incontinence domain. The dimensionality of the voiding/obstructive domain was too difficult to estimate. Conclusions: Our analysis found items that conceptually and psychometrically support 2 constructs (leaking/incontinence and storage/irritative). The consistency of this support between the groups suggests a clinical relevance that is useful in treating patients. We have conceptual support for a third hypothesis (voiding/obstructive), although there were too few items to assess this psychometrically. Relative motivating factors of bother and urinary complaints were not addressed and remain an unmet need in this field.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalUrologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2014

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Physicians
Urinary Incontinence
Urology
Statistical Factor Analysis

Keywords

  • Health-related quality of life
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Prostate cancer
  • Storage (irritative) symptoms
  • Urinary incontinence
  • Voiding (obstructive) symptoms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Urology

Cite this

Ensuring comprehensive assessment of urinary problems in prostate cancer through patient-physician concordance. / Victorson, David E.; Brucker, Penny S.; Bode, Rita K.; Eton, David T; Talcott, James A.; Clark, Jack A.; Knight, Sara J.; Litwin, Mark S.; Moinpour, Carol M.; Reeve, Bryce B.; Aaronson, Neil K.; Bennett, Charles L.; Herr, Harry W.; McGuire, Michael; Shevrin, Daniel; McVary, Kevin; Cella, David.

In: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, Vol. 32, No. 1, 01.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Victorson, DE, Brucker, PS, Bode, RK, Eton, DT, Talcott, JA, Clark, JA, Knight, SJ, Litwin, MS, Moinpour, CM, Reeve, BB, Aaronson, NK, Bennett, CL, Herr, HW, McGuire, M, Shevrin, D, McVary, K & Cella, D 2014, 'Ensuring comprehensive assessment of urinary problems in prostate cancer through patient-physician concordance', Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, vol. 32, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.09.006
Victorson, David E. ; Brucker, Penny S. ; Bode, Rita K. ; Eton, David T ; Talcott, James A. ; Clark, Jack A. ; Knight, Sara J. ; Litwin, Mark S. ; Moinpour, Carol M. ; Reeve, Bryce B. ; Aaronson, Neil K. ; Bennett, Charles L. ; Herr, Harry W. ; McGuire, Michael ; Shevrin, Daniel ; McVary, Kevin ; Cella, David. / Ensuring comprehensive assessment of urinary problems in prostate cancer through patient-physician concordance. In: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2014 ; Vol. 32, No. 1.
@article{cace0b6d3f1b48f4b73e90c46b0b0f54,
title = "Ensuring comprehensive assessment of urinary problems in prostate cancer through patient-physician concordance",
abstract = "Objectives: To examine the concordance between clinicians and men diagnosed with prostate cancer on a clinician-derived pathophysiological classification of the following self-reported urinary complications: storage (irritative), voiding (obstructive), and leakage/incontinence. Materials and methods: Fourteen urology experts classified 37 urinary function questionnaire items into 3 primary conceptual dimensions (e.g., storage [irritative], voiding [obstructive] and urinary leakage/incontinence) that would best reflect each item's content. In addition, 218 patient participants provided responses to the 37 items. Using classifications by experts to develop the conceptual framework, the structure was tested using confirmatory factor analyses with patient data. Results: Expert consensus was achieved in the classification of 31 out of 37 items. Using the 3-factor conceptual framework and patient data, the fit indices for the overall correlated factor model suggested an acceptable overall model fit. The analyses of the separate domains showed acceptable fit for the storage/irritative domain and the leaking/incontinence domain. The dimensionality of the voiding/obstructive domain was too difficult to estimate. Conclusions: Our analysis found items that conceptually and psychometrically support 2 constructs (leaking/incontinence and storage/irritative). The consistency of this support between the groups suggests a clinical relevance that is useful in treating patients. We have conceptual support for a third hypothesis (voiding/obstructive), although there were too few items to assess this psychometrically. Relative motivating factors of bother and urinary complaints were not addressed and remain an unmet need in this field.",
keywords = "Health-related quality of life, Patient-reported outcomes, Prostate cancer, Storage (irritative) symptoms, Urinary incontinence, Voiding (obstructive) symptoms",
author = "Victorson, {David E.} and Brucker, {Penny S.} and Bode, {Rita K.} and Eton, {David T} and Talcott, {James A.} and Clark, {Jack A.} and Knight, {Sara J.} and Litwin, {Mark S.} and Moinpour, {Carol M.} and Reeve, {Bryce B.} and Aaronson, {Neil K.} and Bennett, {Charles L.} and Herr, {Harry W.} and Michael McGuire and Daniel Shevrin and Kevin McVary and David Cella",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.09.006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
journal = "Urologic Oncology",
issn = "1078-1439",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ensuring comprehensive assessment of urinary problems in prostate cancer through patient-physician concordance

AU - Victorson, David E.

AU - Brucker, Penny S.

AU - Bode, Rita K.

AU - Eton, David T

AU - Talcott, James A.

AU - Clark, Jack A.

AU - Knight, Sara J.

AU - Litwin, Mark S.

AU - Moinpour, Carol M.

AU - Reeve, Bryce B.

AU - Aaronson, Neil K.

AU - Bennett, Charles L.

AU - Herr, Harry W.

AU - McGuire, Michael

AU - Shevrin, Daniel

AU - McVary, Kevin

AU - Cella, David

PY - 2014/1

Y1 - 2014/1

N2 - Objectives: To examine the concordance between clinicians and men diagnosed with prostate cancer on a clinician-derived pathophysiological classification of the following self-reported urinary complications: storage (irritative), voiding (obstructive), and leakage/incontinence. Materials and methods: Fourteen urology experts classified 37 urinary function questionnaire items into 3 primary conceptual dimensions (e.g., storage [irritative], voiding [obstructive] and urinary leakage/incontinence) that would best reflect each item's content. In addition, 218 patient participants provided responses to the 37 items. Using classifications by experts to develop the conceptual framework, the structure was tested using confirmatory factor analyses with patient data. Results: Expert consensus was achieved in the classification of 31 out of 37 items. Using the 3-factor conceptual framework and patient data, the fit indices for the overall correlated factor model suggested an acceptable overall model fit. The analyses of the separate domains showed acceptable fit for the storage/irritative domain and the leaking/incontinence domain. The dimensionality of the voiding/obstructive domain was too difficult to estimate. Conclusions: Our analysis found items that conceptually and psychometrically support 2 constructs (leaking/incontinence and storage/irritative). The consistency of this support between the groups suggests a clinical relevance that is useful in treating patients. We have conceptual support for a third hypothesis (voiding/obstructive), although there were too few items to assess this psychometrically. Relative motivating factors of bother and urinary complaints were not addressed and remain an unmet need in this field.

AB - Objectives: To examine the concordance between clinicians and men diagnosed with prostate cancer on a clinician-derived pathophysiological classification of the following self-reported urinary complications: storage (irritative), voiding (obstructive), and leakage/incontinence. Materials and methods: Fourteen urology experts classified 37 urinary function questionnaire items into 3 primary conceptual dimensions (e.g., storage [irritative], voiding [obstructive] and urinary leakage/incontinence) that would best reflect each item's content. In addition, 218 patient participants provided responses to the 37 items. Using classifications by experts to develop the conceptual framework, the structure was tested using confirmatory factor analyses with patient data. Results: Expert consensus was achieved in the classification of 31 out of 37 items. Using the 3-factor conceptual framework and patient data, the fit indices for the overall correlated factor model suggested an acceptable overall model fit. The analyses of the separate domains showed acceptable fit for the storage/irritative domain and the leaking/incontinence domain. The dimensionality of the voiding/obstructive domain was too difficult to estimate. Conclusions: Our analysis found items that conceptually and psychometrically support 2 constructs (leaking/incontinence and storage/irritative). The consistency of this support between the groups suggests a clinical relevance that is useful in treating patients. We have conceptual support for a third hypothesis (voiding/obstructive), although there were too few items to assess this psychometrically. Relative motivating factors of bother and urinary complaints were not addressed and remain an unmet need in this field.

KW - Health-related quality of life

KW - Patient-reported outcomes

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Storage (irritative) symptoms

KW - Urinary incontinence

KW - Voiding (obstructive) symptoms

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890797158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84890797158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.09.006

DO - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2012.09.006

M3 - Article

C2 - 23522840

AN - SCOPUS:84890797158

VL - 32

JO - Urologic Oncology

JF - Urologic Oncology

SN - 1078-1439

IS - 1

ER -