Search

Objectives: Standardised reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies is needed to facilitate learning about how to achieve effective PPI. The aim of this evaluation was to explore the impact of PPI in a large UK study, the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study, and to explore the facilitators and challenges experienced., Design: Mixed-methods study using an online survey and semistructured interviews. Survey and topic guide were informed by systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI and by realist evaluation. Descriptive analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of interview data were conducted. Results are reported using the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) reporting guidelines., Setting: LAPCD study, a UK-wide patient-reported outcome study., Participants: User Advisory Group (UAG) members (n=9) and researchers (n=29) from the LAPCD study., Results: Impact was greatest on improving survey design and topic guides for interviews, enhancing clarity of patient-facing materials, informing best practices around data collection and ensuring steering group meetings were grounded in what is important to the patient. Further impacts included ensuring patient-focused dissemination of study findings at conference presentations and in lay summaries.Facilitating context factors included clear aims, time to contribute, confidence to contribute, and feeling valued and supported by researchers and other UAG members. Facilitating mechanisms included embedding the UAG within the study as a separate workstream, allocating time and resources to the UAG reflecting the value of input, and putting in place clear communication channels. Hindering factors included time commitment, geographical distance, and lack of standardised feedback mechanisms., Conclusion: Including PPI as an integral component of the LAPCD study and providing the right context and mechanisms for involving the UAG helped maximise the programme's effectiveness and impact., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To evaluate the dynamic nature of self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) and morbidity burden in men diagnosed with prostate cancer, we performed a follow-up study of the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study cohort 12 months after initial survey., Methods: The LAPCD study collected information from 35,823 men across the UK who were 18-42 months post-diagnosis of prostate cancer. Men who were still alive 12 months later were resurveyed. Generic HRQL (EQ-5D-5L plus self-assessed health rating) and prostate cancer-specific outcomes (EPIC-26) were assessed. Treatment(s) received was self-reported. Previously defined clinically meaningful differences were used to evaluate changes in outcomes over time., Results: A total of 28,450 men across all disease stages completed follow-up surveys (85.8% response). Of the 21,700 included in this study, 89.7% reported no additional treatments since the first survey. This group experienced stable urinary and bowel outcomes, with good function for most men at both time points. On-going poor (but stable) urinary issues were associated with previous surgery. Sexual function scores remained low (mean: 26.8/100). Self-assessed health ratings were stable over time. The largest declines in HRQL and functional outcomes were experienced by men reporting their first active treatment between surveys., Discussion: The results suggest stability of HRQL and most specific morbidities by 18-42 months for men who report no further treatment in the subsequent 12 months. This is reassuring for those with good function and HRQL but re-enforces the need for early intervention and support for men who experience poor outcomes., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: In the UK, inequalities exist in prostate cancer incidence, survival and treatment by area deprivation and rurality. This work aimed to identify variation in patient-reported outcomes of men with prostate cancer by area type., Methods: A population-based survey of men 18-42 months after prostate cancer diagnosis (N = 35608) measured self-assessed health (SAH) using the EQ-5D and five functional domains using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26)., Results: Mean SAH was higher for men in least deprived areas compared to most deprived (difference 6.3 (95 %CI 5.6-7.2)). SAH scores were lower for men in most urban areas compared to most rural (difference 2.4 (95 %CI 1.8-3.0)). Equivalent estimates in the general population reported a 13 point difference by deprivation and a 4 point difference by rurality. For each EPIC-26 domain, functional outcomes were better for men in the least deprived areas, with clinically meaningful differences observed for urinary incontinence and hormonal function. There were no clinically meaningful differences in EPIC-26 outcomes by rurality with less than a three point difference in scores for each domain between urban and rural areas., Conclusion: In men 18-42 months post diagnosis of prostate cancer in the UK, impacts of area deprivation and rurality on self-assessed health related quality of life were not greater than would be expected in the general population. However, clinically meaningful differences were identified for some prostate functional outcomes (urinary and hormonal function) by deprivation. No impact by rurality of residence was identified., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore adjustment strategies adopted by Black African (BA) and Black Caribbean (BC) men in the UK as a response to the impact of PCa diagnosis and treatment effects., Methods: Men were recruited through the UK-wide 'Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis' (LAPCD) survey. Telephone interviews were conducted with men (n = 14) with BA and BC backgrounds between 18 and 42 months post-diagnosis. Data were analysed using a Framework approach., Results: Most men (n = 12) were born outside the UK, were married (n = 9) and employed (n = 9). Median age was 66 years (range: 55-85). Six overarching themes emerged: a strong reliance upon faith beliefs; maintaining a 'positive' front; work as distraction; non-disclosure of diagnosis even amongst family members, influenced by stigma and masculinity concerns; active awareness-raising amongst a minority and support-seeking from close community. A few men emphasised a need to 'pitch' awareness-raising messages appropriately. Potential links existed between faith beliefs, presenting a positive front, community support-seeking and local awareness-raising., Conclusion: The provision of patient-centred care requires cultural sensitivity. Interventions that challenge stigma and men's reluctance to disclose problems associated with PCa and treatment may encourage help-seeking for symptom support. Research is needed to determine how best awareness-raising messages should be conveyed to black men., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Quality of life among prostate cancer survivors varies by socio-demographic factors and treatment type received; however, less in known about differences in functional outcomes by method of presentation. We investigate differences in reported urinary, bowel, sexual and hormone-related problems between symptomatic and PSA-detected prostate cancer survivors., Methods: A UK wide cross-sectional postal survey of prostate cancer survivors conducted 18-42 months post-diagnosis. Questions were included on presentation method and treatment. Functional outcome was determined using the EPIC-26 questionnaire. Reported outcomes were compared for symptomatic and PSA-detected survivors using ANOVA and multivariable log-linear regression., Results: Thirty-five thousand eight hundred twenty-three men responded (response rate: 60.8%). Of these, 31.3% reported presenting via PSA test and 59.7% symptomatically. In multivariable analysis, symptomatic men reported more difficulty with urinary incontinence (Adjusted mean ratio (AMR): 0.96, 95% CI: 0.96-0.97), urinary irritation (AMR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.95-0.96), bowel function (AMR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.97-0.98), sexual function (AMR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92), and vitality/hormonal function (AMR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.96-0.96) than PSA-detected men. Differences were consistent across respondents of differing age, stage, Gleason score and treatment type., Conclusion: Prostate cancer survivors presenting symptomatically report poorer functional outcomes than PSA-detected survivors. Differences were not explained by socio-demographic or clinical factors. Clinicians should be aware that men presenting with symptoms are more likely to report functional difficulties after prostate cancer treatment and may need additional aftercare if these difficulties persist. Method of presentation should be considered as a covariate in patient-reported outcome studies of prostate cancer.

Purpose: There are known associations between treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) involving Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) and psychological and physical side effects. We investigate the associations between cancer-related symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and poor psychological outcomes in men whose treatment for PCa involved ADT., Methods: A cross-sectional postal questionnaire was administered to UK men 18-42 months post diagnosis of PCa. Men completed items on functional outcomes using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Fatigue subscale. Psychological outcomes (mental well-being and psychological distress) were assessed using the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) and the Kessler 6-item scale (K6), respectively. Associations between explanatory variables and psychological outcomes were assessed using stepped logistic regression., Results: 13,097 men treated with ADT completed a questionnaire. A minority of men reported poor mental well-being (15.5%) or severe psychological distress (6.6%). After controlling for sociodemographic and clinical variables, reporting clinically significant fatigue was strongly associated with severe psychological distress (OR 9.92; 95% CI 7.63 to 12.89) and poor well-being (OR 3.86; 95% CI 3.38 to 4.42). All cancer-related symptoms and HRQL variables were associated with both psychological outcomes., Conclusions: While the majority of men treated with ADT did not report poor psychological outcomes, a small proportion reported severe problems. Clinically significant fatigue was demonstrated as a possible indicator of poor outcomes. Healthcare systems need to have clear protocols in place which specifically and routinely target psychological distress and fatigue.

Background: Prostate cancer incidence, treatment, and survival rates vary throughout the UK, but little is known about regional differences in quality of survival., Objective: To investigate variations in patient-reported outcomes between UK countries and English Cancer Alliances., Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional postal survey of prostate cancer survivors diagnosed 18-42mo previously., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Urinary, bowel, and sexual problems and vitality were patient reported using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire. General health was also self-assessed. Regional variations were identified using multivariable log-linear regression., Results and Limitations: A total of 35823 men responded, 60.8% of those invited. Self-assessed health was significantly lower than the UK average in Wales and Scotland. Respondents reported more urinary incontinence in Scotland, more urinary irritation/obstruction in Scotland and Northern Ireland (NI), poorer bowel function in Scotland and NI, worse sexual function in Scotland, and reduced vitality/hormonal function in Scotland, Wales, and NI. Self-assessed health was poorer than the English average in South Yorkshire and North-East and Cumbria, with more urinary incontinence in North-East and Cumbria and Peninsula, greater sexual problems in West Midlands, and poorer vitality in North-East and Cumbria and West Midlands. Limitations include difficulty identifying clinically significant differences and limited information on pretreatment conditions., Conclusions: Despite adjustment for treatment, and clinical and sociodemographic factors, quality of survival among prostate cancer survivors varied by area of residence. Adoption of best practice from areas performing well could support enhanced survival quality in poorer performing areas, particularly with regard to bowel problems and vitality, where clinically relevant differences were reported., Patient Summary: We conducted a UK-wide survey of patient's quality of life after treatment for prostate cancer. Outcomes were found to vary depending upon where patients live. Different service providers need to ensure that all prostate cancer patients receive the same follow-up care., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To explore experiences of treatment decision-making (TDM) amongst men diagnosed with stage 1-3 prostate cancer., Methods: Mixed-methods study incorporating UK-wide cross-sectional postal survey of men 18-42 months post-diagnosis and semi-structured interviews with a subsample (n = 97), including men who received both radical treatments and active surveillance. Interview data was analysed using a Framework approach., Results: Within the context of TDM, 'drivers' included men's intra-personal preferences for decision-making responsibility or clinical direction, relative treatment intrusiveness or desire for excision, and work, personal and social life priorities; 'facilitators' were inter-personal mechanisms such as information and communication with clinicians to enact, but also sometimes challenge drivers. Drivers and facilitators can conflict, challenging patient empowerment. Men frequently undertook greater TDM responsibility than desired, without clinical recommendations; others received conflicting recommendations. Information on potential side-effects was often reportedly inadequate. Unchallenged preferences, absence of clinical recommendations and inadequate preparation for side-effects sometimes led to decision regret., Conclusions: Men are not empowered when expected to take more TDM responsibility than desired, when provided with conflicting recommendations, or when their potentially inappropriate preferences are unchallenged., Practice Implications: TDM should involve men exercising preferences and priorities in discussion with clinicians. Clinicians should ensure patients do not receive conflicting recommendations., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of men living with advanced prostate cancer. We report population-wide functional outcomes and HRQOL in men with all stages of prostate cancer and identify implications for health-care delivery., Methods: For this population-based study, men in the UK living 18-42 months after diagnosis of prostate cancer were identified through cancer registration data. A postal survey was administered, which contained validated measures to assess functional outcomes (urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and obstruction, bowel, sexual, and vitality and hormonal function), measured with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short form (EPIC-26), plus questions about use of interventions for sexual dysfunction) and generic HRQOL (assessed with the 5-level EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire [EQ-5D-5L] measuring mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression, plus a rating of self-assessed health). Log-linear and binary logistic regression models were used to compare functional outcomes and HRQOL across diagnostic stages and self-reported treatment groups. Each model included adjustment for age, socioeconomic deprivation, and number of other long-term conditions., Findings: 35 823 (60·8%) of 58 930 men responded to the survey. Disease stage was known for 30 733 (85·8%) of 35 823 men; 19 599 (63·8%) had stage I or II, 7209 (23·4%) stage III, and 3925 (12·8%) stage IV disease. Mean adjusted EPIC-26 domain scores were high, indicating good function, except for sexual function, for which scores were much lower. Compared with men who did not receive androgen deprivation therapy, more men who received the therapy reported moderate to big problems with hot flushes (30·7% [95% CI 29·8-31·6] vs 5·4% [5·0-5·8]), low energy (29·4% [95% CI 28·6-30·3] vs 14·7% [14·2-15·3]), and weight gain (22·5%, 21·7-23·3) vs 6·9% [6·5-7·3]). Poor sexual function was common (81·0%; 95% CI 80·6-81·5), regardless of stage, and more than half of men (n=18 782 [55·8%]) were not offered any intervention to help with this condition. Overall, self-assessed health was similar in men with stage I-III disease, and although slightly reduced in those with stage IV cancer, 23·5% of men with metastatic disease reported no problems on any EQ-5D dimension., Interpretation: Men diagnosed with advanced disease do not report substantially different HRQOL outcomes to those diagnosed with localised disease, although considerable problems with hormonal function and fatigue are reported in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy. Sexual dysfunction is common and most men are not offered helpful intervention or support. Service improvements around sexual rehabilitation and measures to reduce the effects of androgen deprivation therapy are required., Funding: The Movember Foundation, in partnership with Prostate Cancer UK., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prostate cancer and its treatment may impact physically, psychologically and socially; affecting the health-related quality of life of men and their partners/spouses. The Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study is a UK-wide patient-reported outcomes study which will generate information to improve the health and well-being of men with prostate cancer., Methods and Analysis: Postal surveys will be sent to prostate cancer survivors (18-42 months postdiagnosis) in all 4 UK countries (n=∼70 000). Eligible men will be identified and/or verified through cancer registration systems. Men will be surveyed twice, 12 months apart, to explore changes in outcomes over time. Second, separate cohorts will be surveyed once and the design will include evaluation of the acceptability of online survey tools. A comprehensive patient-reported outcome measure has been developed using generic and specific instruments with proven psychometric properties and relevance in national and international studies. The outcome data will be linked with administrative health data (eg, treatment information from hospital data). To ensure detailed understanding of issues of importance, qualitative interviews will be undertaken with a sample of men who complete the survey across the UK (n=∼150) along with a small number of partners/spouses (n=∼30)., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has received the following approvals: Newcastle and North Tyneside 1 Research Ethics Committee (15/NE/0036), Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group (15/CAG/0110), NHS Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (0516-0364), Office of Research Ethics Northern Ireland (16/NI/0073) and NHS R&D approval from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Using traditional and innovative methods, the results will be made available to men and their partners/spouses, the funders, the NHS, social care, voluntary sector organisations and other researchers., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)