655 COMPREHENSION AND PREFERENCES FOR GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER PROSTATE CANCER TREATMENT

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Quality of Life1 Apr 2012655 COMPREHENSION AND PREFERENCES FOR GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER PROSTATE CANCER TREATMENT Jason P. Izard, Andrea L. Hartzler, Bruce L. Dalkin, and John L. Gore Jason P. IzardJason P. Izard Seattle, WA More articles by this author , Andrea L. HartzlerAndrea L. Hartzler Seattle, WA More articles by this author , Bruce L. DalkinBruce L. Dalkin Seattle, WA More articles by this author , and John L. GoreJohn L. Gore Seattle, WA More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.735AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Integration of quality of life (QoL) measurement into clinical prostate cancer (PCa) practice may enhance patient communication with their clinicians, improve satisfaction with care, and affect the timing of delivery of secondary therapies for the side effects of PCa treatment. We developed graphical representations of prostate cancer QoL (dashboards) and compared patients' comprehension and preferences among four alternative formats to those of prostate cancer providers. METHODS We conducted interviews with PCa patients and providers, assessing health literacy, subjective numeracy, and graphic literacy with validated instruments. We then presented both groups with the candidate dashboards, counterbalanced for dashboard format order and positive or negative framing, and we assessed participants' comprehension, confidence in interpretation, helpfulness rating, and rank order preferences. RESULTS Our study has included 29 PCa patients and 24 providers. Patients had a mean age of 71 years (range 53-90), were mostly white (86%), and had at least a college degree (76%). Providers had a mean age and number of years in practice of 47 (range 27-70) and 17 (range 1-35), respectively. Most patients had localized PCa (90%) and were treated within the last 5 years (55%); 9 participants (31%) had undergone more than one type of treatment. The health literacy (mean score 6.9±0.26 out of 7), numeracy (mean score 4.3±0.94 out of 6), and graphic literacy (mean score 11.4±1.4 out of 13) of our patient sample was high. Comprehension did not vary by dashboard format (range 84% correct for line graph to 91% correct for bar graph, p=0.39). The pictographs exhibited lower helpfulness ratings (p=0.001). Preference elicitation strongly favored the bar graph format in patients (ranked most preferred by 52% of patients (p<0.001)). Yet, there was equal preference for the table, bar and line formats among providers (each ranked most preferred by 33% of providers). The pictograph tested poorly in both groups (ranked least preferred by 69% of patients and by 75% of providers). CONCLUSIONS Among a high literacy and numeracy sample of PCa patients, comprehension and preference ranking strongly favored bar graph formats for QoL dashboards, although providers had no definite preference. Pictographs, known to benefit low literacy patients, were not preferred by patients or providers. Inclusion of lower literacy patients may yield different results. Future work will determine if clinical integration of these dashboards is associated with improved health outcomes. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e267 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jason P. Izard Seattle, WA More articles by this author Andrea L. Hartzler Seattle, WA More articles by this author Bruce L. Dalkin Seattle, WA More articles by this author John L. Gore Seattle, WA More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...