Pd44-05 Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Ureteral Stricture Disease

You have accessJournal of UrologyReconstruction: Ureteral Reconstruction (Including Pyeloplasty) and Bladder Reconstruction (Including Trauma-Related Fistula) II (PD44)1 May 2024PD44-05 DEVELOPMENT OF A PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURE FOR URETERAL STRICTURE DISEASE Devin Boehm, Kyle Nolla, Jonathan Rosenfeld, Emily Ji, Rebecca Arteaga, Aidan Raikar, Jaewoo Kim, James W. Griffith, and Ziho Lee Devin BoehmDevin Boehm , Kyle NollaKyle Nolla , Jonathan RosenfeldJonathan Rosenfeld , Emily JiEmily Ji , Rebecca ArteagaRebecca Arteaga , Aidan RaikarAidan Raikar , Jaewoo KimJaewoo Kim , James W. GriffithJames W. Griffith , and Ziho LeeZiho Lee View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008800.83683.92.05AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: There are currently no validated disease-specific clinical tools used to assess patient attitudes towards ureteral stricture disease (USD) and its management. The purpose of our study was to develop a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) using psychometric methods and expert opinion to quantify the impact of USD and its management. METHODS: Patients undergoing robotic ureteral reconstruction for USD between 9/2021 and 4/2023 were eligible for enrollment. There were four steps in our PROM development (Figure 1): 1) Semi-structured concept elicitation interviews to evaluate the physical, mental, and social effects of USD at three stages: preoperative, early postoperative (with ureteral stent in place), and late postoperative (after stent removal). These interviews were conducted until saturation was reached; 2) Transcription and coding of all interviews for qualitative thematic analysis. These data were then used for item generation; 3) Input from clinicians on the items from recognized experts in the field, defined as those who perform>30 ureteral reconstructions per year; and 4) Cognitive interviews to assess patient comprehension and relevance of the PROM. RESULTS: We conducted 14 semi-structured concept-elicitation interviews. After qualitative analysis of these interviews, we generated a 13-item instrument: 8 items assessed symptoms, 4 items assessed quality of life, and 1 item assessed patient-perceived treatment success. Expert input supported the content of the PROM, as minor adjustments were made to the existing items and no new items were added. We conducted two rounds of cognitive interviews. The first round included 6 patients, and the PROM was revised according to patient feedback. The second round included 4 patients; no additional revisions were made based on the second round. Our finalized PROM is shown in Figure 2. CONCLUSIONS: Our PROM, which we developed using psychometric methods and expert opinion,can assess patient perspectives and outcomes regarding USD and its management. Download PPTDownload PPT Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e906 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Devin Boehm More articles by this author Kyle Nolla More articles by this author Jonathan Rosenfeld More articles by this author Emily Ji More articles by this author Rebecca Arteaga More articles by this author Aidan Raikar More articles by this author Jaewoo Kim More articles by this author James W. Griffith More articles by this author Ziho Lee More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...