ESTRO 2025 - Abstract Book

S4199

RTT - Patient experience and quality of life

ESTRO 2025

3843

Proffered Paper Findings from a longitudinal Study: What is the optimal strategy for PREM-assessment in Radiation Oncology? Chahrazad Benazzouz 1 , Dylan Callens 2,1 , Jan Verstraete 1 , Charlien Berghen 1,2 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 2 Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Purpose/Objective: In 2024, we conducted a follow-up measurement to assess patient perceptions following a previous intervention in 2020, where Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) were implemented in our department[1]. The objectives of this follow-up were twofold: first , to track changes in patient experience since the initial measurement, and second , to compare the characteristics of the PREM short version (SQ)[2] and long version (LQ)[3] used in our overall PREM assessment. Both the SQ and LQ consisted of a combination of open and closed questions, with the SQ presented at the beginning of the PREM and the LQ at the end, which concluded with its open questions (fig.1).

Material/Methods: In this prospective, monocentric follow-up study, 309 consecutively treated radiotherapy patients participated (response rate 52%; period: October 2023 – March 2024). Patients were recruited during radiotherapy treatment by trained volunteers. The PREM assessment was identical to the one in 2020, comprising a combination of open and closed questions regarding all treatment aspects, totaling 56 items. The questionnaires were returned anonymously. Descriptive statistics were used for the closed-question responses, while open questions were analyzed thematically in a multidisciplinary approach. Results: The survey revealed a positive trend in the areas identified as needing improvement in 2020, confirming PREMs' effectiveness in evaluating impact of interventions (fig.2). An association between the overall ratings in the SQ and the LQ was found. The SQ offers advantages such as a concise format, ease of completion, and a rapid overview of patient experiences. Its open-ended questions highlight both positive and negative aspects, often aligning with closed-question themes from the LQ. However, analyzing is prone to coding inconsistencies and confirmation bias. The LQ combines closed and open questions, allowing for association testing, such as linking patient characteristics to findings. However, it shares the SQ's challenges with open-question analysis and adds the burden of extensive closed-question data. Using the LQ following the SQ does not yield different results, as patients already addresses a variety of treatment aspects in the open-ended questions in the SQ. While the LQ provides a detailed quantitative overview, combining it with the SQ doesn't improve the understanding of patients' experiences.