Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  E15 148 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page E15 148 Next Page
Page Background

Letter to the Editor

Reply to Bora Lee and Jae Heon Kim's Letter to the Editor

re: Alan D. Uren, Nikki Cotterill, Christopher Harding,

et al. Qualitative Exploration of the Patient Experience

of Underactive Bladder. Eur Urol 2017;72:402

7

We thank the authors for their letter on our article

[1]

and

provide the following clarifications in response. A patient-

reported outcome (PRO) measure was not used as part of

the methodology in this study. Indeed, PRO measure

development requires a lengthy validation process, of

which this was the initial phase. The findings support the

development of a new PRO measure for the assessment of

the signs, symptoms, and impact of underactive bladder

(UAB).

The study used qualitative methodology to explore the

experience of UAB from a patient perspective using semi-

structured interviews, guided by an interview schedule.

Patients were encouraged to talk in an open-ended manner

about their experiences, using prompts from the interview

schedule to

guide

discussion. A well-designed interview

guide is important in order to help avoid possible

interviewer bias or unintentional influence of the re-

searcher on the type of responses from the subject.

Exploratory qualitative interviews are particularly useful

to explore around a topic for which little may be

understood, as is the case with UAB. Direct patient input

using qualitative research methodology is important for

the demonstration of content validity when developing a

new instrument

[2,3] .

Although the underlying aetiology of the presenting

detrusor underactivity (DU) in the sample was not

assessed, neurological patients were excluded. However,

as UAB was the symptom complex under investigation, it

was not necessary to ascertain the underlying aetiology of

the DU at this stage. Indeed, there is a lack of evidence for

the symptomatic presentation of its various aetiological

origins, which requires further study. We took the

pragmatic decision to categorise our sample by those

with DU only and those with DU and coexisting condi-

tions. This allowed the notable reporting of incontinence

to be mainly associated with the inclusion of the group

with those who demonstrated DU and coexisting detrusor

overactivity or stress urinary incontinence during urody-

namic assessment. The complex underling aetiology of

nocturia was discussed as being problematic; we agree it

is uncertain to what extent nocturia can be attributed to

the presence of DU.

As an initial qualitative study, the intention was not to

produce representative epidemiological data, but to identify

the patient-relevant symptoms and impacts. Responsive-

ness and other psychometric properties of the develop-

mental PRO measure, including further elucidation of

symptom prevalence and bother, will be possible later in

the PRO measure validation process.

Conflicts of interest:

Alan D. Uren, Paul Abrams, and Nikki Cotterill are

supported by a grant from Astellas. Monique Klaver, Dominique

Bongaerts, and Zalmai Hakimi are employees of Astellas Pharma

Europe. Paul Abrams has received personal fees from Astellas, P

fi

zer,

Ferring, Ipsen, and Sun Pharma. Nikki Cotterill has received personal

fees from Procter and Gamble. Christopher Chapple has received

personal fees from Allergan, Astellas, Medtronic, and Recordati.

Christopher Harding has received personal fees from Astellas, P

fi

zer,

Ferring, Allergan, Medtronic, American Medical Systems, and Pierre

Fabre Pharmaceuticals.

References

[1] Uren AD, Cotterill N, Harding C, et al. Qualitative exploration of

the patient experience of underactive bladder. Eur Urol 2017;72:

402

7.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.045

.

[2] Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity

establish-

ing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-

reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evalua-

tion: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report: part 1

eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health

2011;14:967

77.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014

.

[3]

US Food and Drug Adminstration. Guidance for industry: patient- reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009 December, www.fda.gov/down- loads/drugs/guidances/ucm193282.pdf

.

Alan D. Uren

a,

*

Nikki Cotterill

a

Christopher Harding

b

Christopher Hillary

c

Christopher Chapple

c

Monique Klaver

d

Dominique Bongaerts

d

E U R O P E A N U R O L O GY 7 3 ( 2 0 18 ) e 15 e 16

ava ilable at

www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage:

www.eu ropeanurology.com

DOIs of original articles:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.07.033 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.045

.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.07.037

0302-2838/© 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.