Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBranney, Peter
dc.contributor.authorWalters, Elizabeth R.
dc.contributor.authorBryant, Eleanor J.
dc.contributor.authorHollyhead, Cyan
dc.contributor.authorNjoku, K.
dc.contributor.authorVyas, L.
dc.contributor.authorModica, C.
dc.contributor.authorKayes, O.
dc.contributor.authorEardley, I.
dc.contributor.authorHenry, A.
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-21T13:36:42Z
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-23T12:11:38Z
dc.date.available2021-12-21T13:36:42Z
dc.date.available2021-12-23T12:11:38Z
dc.date.issued2022-07
dc.identifier.citationBranney P, Walters ER, Bryant EJ et al (2022) The feasibility of patient reported outcome measures for the care of penile cancer. International Journal of Urological Nursing. 16(2): 138-146.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10454/18715
dc.descriptionYesen_US
dc.description.abstractWhen used in routine clinical practice, Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMS) can give patients tacit approval to discuss embarrassing topics, which could be particularly useful for urological nursing. The aim of this study was to assess whether it would be feasible to use two such measures for penile cancer; one for body image (the Male Genital Self-Image Scale; MGSIS-5) and another for lymphedema (the Groin and Lower Limb Lymphedema questionnaire; G3L-20). Study packs were posted to penile cancer patients who had received (i) sentinel node biopsy only, (ii) inguinal node dissection only, and (iii) inguinal node dissection with post-operative radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. The two measures (MGSIS-5 and G3L-20) were complemented with those specific to sexual function (IIEF) and cancer (EORTC-QLQ-C30 version 3) and a modified Lymphoedema Genitourinary Cancer Questionnaire (mLGUCQ). Twenty patients returned questionnaires. Validity and reliability analyses are presented but low participant numbers mean that results need treating with caution. Results show sufficient feasibility for the MGSIS-5 and the G3L-20 to warrant another study to attract larger numbers of participants, either over a longer time frame or at multiple sites. In these further studies, we would recommend adding (1) more Likert responses, (2) the timeframe to the MGIS and (3) exploring either the use of sexual desire psychometric measures or the addition of sexual desire items to the MGSIS for this patient group.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.rights© 2022 Wiley. This is the peer-reviewed version of the following article: Branney P, Walters ER, Bryant EJ et al (2022) The feasibility of patient reported outcome measures for the care of penile cancer. International Journal of Urological Nursing. xx(xx): xx-xxx, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/ijun.12307. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.en_US
dc.subjectGenital body imageen_US
dc.subjectLymphedemaen_US
dc.subjectOncologyen_US
dc.subjectOpen auditen_US
dc.subjectPenile canceren_US
dc.subjectRadiologyen_US
dc.subjectSurgeryen_US
dc.titleThe feasibility of patient reported outcome measures for the care of penile canceren_US
dc.status.refereedYesen_US
dc.date.Accepted2021-11-26
dc.date.application2021-12-19
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.type.versionAccepted manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/ijun.12307
dc.date.updated2021-12-21T13:36:46Z
refterms.dateFOA2021-12-23T12:12:02Z
dc.openaccess.statusopenAccessen_US


Item file(s)

Thumbnail
Name:
branney_et_al_2021.pdf
Size:
456.2Kb
Format:
PDF
Thumbnail
Name:
PsychometricMeasuresPenileCanc ...
Size:
105.5Kb
Format:
Microsoft Word 2007
Description:
Keep suppressed - Word version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record