The Patients Concerns Inventory in head and neck cancer: comparison between self-completed paper and touch screen versions in the clinic setting

M R Idle, D Lowe, Simon N Rogers, A J Sidebottom, B Speculand, S F Worrall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The Patients Concerns Inventory (PCI) is a practical tool for patients to highlight their concerns and needs for discussion in consultations. Objective: To use paper and touch-screen technology (TST) versions of the PCI, to see if there were differences in issues raised by patients before consultation and in issues discussed during consultation. Methods: Two consultants participated. Also 105 of their post-operative head and neck cancer patients in 122 consultations completed paper or TST versions of the PCI before consultation, April 2010 to April 2012. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between paper and TST in how many PCI concerns were selected by patients or discussed in consultation, nor in length of consultation. Fear of recurrence, chewing/eating, dental health, swallowing, salivation, head & neck pain, speech and sleeping issues were common concerns across both paper and TST. Fewer than 10% of patients encountered any problems when completing either form of PCI. Interestingly, the two consultants used the PCI differently, reflected in different levels of agreement between items highlighted on the PCI and items subsequently discussed – κappa-coefficients of agreement were 0.68 for the paper and 0.66 for the TST version of the PCI (consultant A) and 0.55 for the paper and 0.32 for the TST version of the PCI (consultant B). Conclusions: This study found that the paper version of the PCI was an acceptable alternative to the TST version.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)863-869
JournalEuropean Journal of Oncology Nursing
Volume17
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2013

Fingerprint

Head and Neck Neoplasms
Equipment and Supplies
Referral and Consultation
Technology
Consultants
Salivation
Neck Pain
Mastication
Deglutition
Fear
Tooth

Cite this

Idle, M R ; Lowe, D ; Rogers, Simon N ; Sidebottom, A J ; Speculand, B ; Worrall, S F. / The Patients Concerns Inventory in head and neck cancer: comparison between self-completed paper and touch screen versions in the clinic setting. In: European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2013 ; Vol. 17, No. 6. pp. 863-869.
@article{cbb1fc930bba44a3bbc85abb34224a10,
title = "The Patients Concerns Inventory in head and neck cancer: comparison between self-completed paper and touch screen versions in the clinic setting",
abstract = "Background: The Patients Concerns Inventory (PCI) is a practical tool for patients to highlight their concerns and needs for discussion in consultations. Objective: To use paper and touch-screen technology (TST) versions of the PCI, to see if there were differences in issues raised by patients before consultation and in issues discussed during consultation. Methods: Two consultants participated. Also 105 of their post-operative head and neck cancer patients in 122 consultations completed paper or TST versions of the PCI before consultation, April 2010 to April 2012. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between paper and TST in how many PCI concerns were selected by patients or discussed in consultation, nor in length of consultation. Fear of recurrence, chewing/eating, dental health, swallowing, salivation, head & neck pain, speech and sleeping issues were common concerns across both paper and TST. Fewer than 10{\%} of patients encountered any problems when completing either form of PCI. Interestingly, the two consultants used the PCI differently, reflected in different levels of agreement between items highlighted on the PCI and items subsequently discussed – κappa-coefficients of agreement were 0.68 for the paper and 0.66 for the TST version of the PCI (consultant A) and 0.55 for the paper and 0.32 for the TST version of the PCI (consultant B). Conclusions: This study found that the paper version of the PCI was an acceptable alternative to the TST version.",
author = "Idle, {M R} and D Lowe and Rogers, {Simon N} and Sidebottom, {A J} and B Speculand and Worrall, {S F}",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejon.2013.05.002",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "863--869",
journal = "European Journal of Oncology Nursing",
issn = "1462-3889",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "6",

}

The Patients Concerns Inventory in head and neck cancer: comparison between self-completed paper and touch screen versions in the clinic setting. / Idle, M R; Lowe, D; Rogers, Simon N; Sidebottom, A J; Speculand, B; Worrall, S F.

In: European Journal of Oncology Nursing, Vol. 17, No. 6, 12.2013, p. 863-869.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Patients Concerns Inventory in head and neck cancer: comparison between self-completed paper and touch screen versions in the clinic setting

AU - Idle, M R

AU - Lowe, D

AU - Rogers, Simon N

AU - Sidebottom, A J

AU - Speculand, B

AU - Worrall, S F

PY - 2013/12

Y1 - 2013/12

N2 - Background: The Patients Concerns Inventory (PCI) is a practical tool for patients to highlight their concerns and needs for discussion in consultations. Objective: To use paper and touch-screen technology (TST) versions of the PCI, to see if there were differences in issues raised by patients before consultation and in issues discussed during consultation. Methods: Two consultants participated. Also 105 of their post-operative head and neck cancer patients in 122 consultations completed paper or TST versions of the PCI before consultation, April 2010 to April 2012. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between paper and TST in how many PCI concerns were selected by patients or discussed in consultation, nor in length of consultation. Fear of recurrence, chewing/eating, dental health, swallowing, salivation, head & neck pain, speech and sleeping issues were common concerns across both paper and TST. Fewer than 10% of patients encountered any problems when completing either form of PCI. Interestingly, the two consultants used the PCI differently, reflected in different levels of agreement between items highlighted on the PCI and items subsequently discussed – κappa-coefficients of agreement were 0.68 for the paper and 0.66 for the TST version of the PCI (consultant A) and 0.55 for the paper and 0.32 for the TST version of the PCI (consultant B). Conclusions: This study found that the paper version of the PCI was an acceptable alternative to the TST version.

AB - Background: The Patients Concerns Inventory (PCI) is a practical tool for patients to highlight their concerns and needs for discussion in consultations. Objective: To use paper and touch-screen technology (TST) versions of the PCI, to see if there were differences in issues raised by patients before consultation and in issues discussed during consultation. Methods: Two consultants participated. Also 105 of their post-operative head and neck cancer patients in 122 consultations completed paper or TST versions of the PCI before consultation, April 2010 to April 2012. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between paper and TST in how many PCI concerns were selected by patients or discussed in consultation, nor in length of consultation. Fear of recurrence, chewing/eating, dental health, swallowing, salivation, head & neck pain, speech and sleeping issues were common concerns across both paper and TST. Fewer than 10% of patients encountered any problems when completing either form of PCI. Interestingly, the two consultants used the PCI differently, reflected in different levels of agreement between items highlighted on the PCI and items subsequently discussed – κappa-coefficients of agreement were 0.68 for the paper and 0.66 for the TST version of the PCI (consultant A) and 0.55 for the paper and 0.32 for the TST version of the PCI (consultant B). Conclusions: This study found that the paper version of the PCI was an acceptable alternative to the TST version.

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejon.2013.05.002

DO - 10.1016/j.ejon.2013.05.002

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 863

EP - 869

JO - European Journal of Oncology Nursing

JF - European Journal of Oncology Nursing

SN - 1462-3889

IS - 6

ER -