Patient activation and adherence to follow up in prostate cancer
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Does a measure of patient activation predict adherence to follow-up in prostate cancer patients?
IRAS ID
199446
Contact name
Lloyd Edwards
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Torbay Hospital Research & Development
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 3 months, 1 days
Research summary
Some cancers are now becoming comparable to chronic diseases with patients living for many years with metastases. Oncology departments do not have the capacity to follow-up these patients in the traditional way for many years. There are different subgroups of patients who are more or less likely to self present to specialists or GPs if they develop symptoms of disease, and delayed presentation is known to lead to worse outcomes. The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is a tool that is used to assess patients’ engagement in their healthcare, and the score given has been validated to show that patients with higher activation are more likely to exhibit behaviours that are beneficial for health. In this project I want to look at whether the PAM can predict the likelihood of patients missing blood tests to have their PSA checked in prostate cancer patients. If the PAM was successful in predicting this, this could signify that it could possibly be used to predict which patients were more or less likely to stick to follow-up guidelines more generally. And resources could be focused on patients who are less likely to self-present if they developed issues.
All patients with prostate cancer in the Torbay area who have had their PSA tests monitored for over 2 years are eligible for the study. The study will be based in Torbay Hospital.
The study will last for 3 months, and will involve the patients filling in 2 questionnaires, one being the PAM questionnaire and another asking for lifestyle information. After this the questionnaire responses will be analysed and the patient activation scores will be compared with the number of missed blood tests that they have had and analysed to see if there is a correlation.
REC name
London - Brighton & Sussex Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/LO/1549
Date of REC Opinion
22 Sep 2016
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion