Skip to main content

Table 1 Description of study measures

From: Type of treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction play an important role in primary care contact during prostate cancer follow-up: results from the population-based PROFILES registry

 

Description of items and scales

Scoring, and interpretation of scores:

Patient and clinical characteristics

NCR: age at time of questionnaire, primary treatment, time since diagnosis, and tumor stage (TNM classification).

Patient reported: education level, marital status, comorbidity using the self-administered comorbidity questionnaire [19].

Educational level: low (no education and (lower) primary education), intermediate (secondary (vocational) education), and high (higher (vocational) education and university)

Involvement of GP

 GP contact

Assessed with one question: ‘Did you have contact with your GP in the period you were recovering from your cancer treatment?’

Yes/no/I don’t know

 Preferring more GP contact

Assessed with one question: ‘Would you like to have had (more) contact with your GP during the follow-up phase?’

Yes/no

Symptoms

Patient reported, using the EORTC QLQ PR-25 [20]: urinary symptoms, incontinence aid, bowel symptoms, hormonal symptoms, sexual activity, sexual functioning.

0-100: higher scores implies more symptoms or worse functioning

Patients’ evaluation of their GP

 Satisfaction with GP

Item: Assessed using a self-developed question: ‘Are (were) you satisfied with your GP in the phase after treatment?’.

Scale: The item was linearly transformed into a scale.

Item: Five-point response format ranging from ‘very satisfied’ to ‘very unsatisfied’.

Scale: 0-100: higher scores implied more satisfaction with GP

 Trust in GP

Items: Assessed using two self-developed statements: ‘I have a lot of trust in my GP’ and ‘I trust my GP in referring me to the hospital, when necessary’.

Scale: The items were combined into one scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.84).

Items: Five-point response format ranging from ‘totally agree’ to ‘totally disagree’.

Scale: 0-100: higher scores implied more trust in GP

 Appraised knowledge of GP

Items: Assessed using three self-developed statements: ‘I think my GP has sufficient knowledge of the side effects and consequences of the cancer treatments’, ‘I think my GP has sufficient knowledge to decide whether it is necessary to refer me to the hospital for my complaints’, and ‘I think my GP knows which medical specialists are experts in assisting people with cancer’.

Scale: The items were combined into one scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.75).

Items: Five-point response format ranging from ‘totally agree’ to ‘totally disagree’.

Scale: 0-100: higher scores implied higher knowledge rating of GP

  1. Abbreviations. NCR Netherlands Cancer Registry, NA Not Applicable, GP General Practitioner, EORTC QLQ PR-25 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Prostate Cancer Module