Yvonne Sylvestre

Gynaecological cancer follow-up: national survey of current practice in the UK

Objective To establish a baseline of national practice for follow-up after treatment for gynaecological cancer. Design Questionnaire survey. Setting Gynaecological cancer centres and units. Geographical location UK. Participants Members of the British Gynaecological Cancer Society and the National Forum of Gynaecological Oncology Nurses. Interventions A questionnaire survey. Outcome measures To determine schedules of follow-up, who provides it and what routine testing is used for patients who have had previous gynaecological cancer. Results A total of 117 responses were obtained; 115 (98%) reported hospital scheduled regular follow-up appointments. Two involved general practitioners. Follow-up was augmented or replaced by telephone follow-up in 29 responses (25%) and patient-initiated appointments in 38 responses (32%). A total of 80 (68%) cancer specialists also offered combined follow-up clinics with other specialties. Clinical examinations for hospital-based follow-up were mainly performed by doctors (67% for scheduled regular appointments and 63% for patient-initiated appointments) while telephone follow-up was provided in the majority by nurses (76%). Most respondents (76/117 (65%)) provided routine tests, of which 66/76 (87%) reported carrying out surveillance tests for ovarian cancer, 35/76 (46%) for cervical cancer, 8/76 (11%) for vulval cancer and 7/76 (9%) for endometrial cancer. Patients were usually discharged after 5 years (82/117 (70%)), whereas three (3%) were discharged after 4 years, nine (8%) after three years and one (1%) after 2 years. Conclusions Practice varied but most used a standard hospital-based protocol of appointments for 5 years and routine tests were performed usually for women with ovarian cancer. A minority utilised nurse-led or telephone follow-up. General practitioners were rarely involved in routine care. A randomised study comparing various models of follow-up could be considered.

Enhancing rigour in the validation of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs): bridging linguistic and psychometric testing

BackgroundA strong consensus exists for a systematic approach to linguistic validation of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and discrete methods for assessing their psychometric properties. Despite the need for robust evidence of the appropriateness of measures, transition from linguistic to psychometric validation is poorly documented or evidenced. This paper demonstrates the importance of linking linguistic and psychometric testing through a purposeful stage which bridges the gap between translation and large-scale validation.FindingsEvidence is drawn from a study to develop a Welsh language version of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and investigate its psychometric properties. The BDI-II was translated into Welsh then administered to Welsh-speaking university students (n = 115) and patients with depression (n = 37) concurrent with the English BDI-II, and alongside other established depression and quality of life measures. A Welsh version of the BDI-II was produced that, on administration, showed conceptual equivalence with the original measure; high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90; 0.96); item homogeneity; adequate correlation with the English BDI-II (r = 0.96; 0.94) and additional measures; and a two-factor structure with one overriding dimension. Nevertheless, in the student sample, the Welsh version showed a significantly lower overall mean than the English (p = 0.002); and significant differences in six mean item scores. This prompted a review and refinement of the translated measure.ConclusionsExploring potential sources of bias in translated measures represents a critical step in the translation-validation process, which until now has been largely underutilised. This paper offers important findings that inform advanced methods of cross-cultural validation of PROMs.

Randomised, single-masked non-inferiority trial of femtosecond laser-assisted versus manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery for adults with visually significant cataract: the FACT trial protocol.

Introduction Cataract is one of the leading causes of low vision in the westernised world, and cataract surgery is one of the most commonly performed operations. Laser platforms for cataract surgery are now available, the anticipated advantages of which are broad and may include better visual outcomes through greater precision and reproducibility, and improved safety. FACT is a randomised single masked non-inferiority trial to establish whether laser-assisted cataract surgery is as good as or better than standard manual phacoemulsification. Methods and analysis 808 patients aged 18 years and over with visually significant cataract will be randomised to manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery (standard care) or laser-assisted cataract surgery (intervention arm). Outcomes will be measured at 3 and 12 months after surgery. The primary clinical outcome is uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, logMAR) at 3 months in the study eye recorded by an observer masked to the trial group. Secondary outcomes include UDVA at 12 months, corrected distance visual acuity at 3 and 12 months, complications, endothelial cell loss, patient-reported outcome measures and a health economic analysis conforming to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence standards. Ethics and dissemination Research Ethics Committee Approval was obtained on 6 February 2015, ref: 14/LO/1937. Current protocol: v2.0 (08/04/2015). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number ISRCTN: 77602616.