Uluslararası prostat semptom skoru sorgulama formu hasta, asistan ve Uzman doktor tarafından farklı mı değerlendiriliyor?

Year 2013, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 20 - 23, 01.01.2013

Berat Cem Özgür Musa Ekici Cem Nedim Yücetürk Ahmet Metin Hasçiçek Tolga Karakan Haşmet Sarıcı Muzaffer Eroğlu

Abstract

Giriş: Uluslararası Prostat semptom skoru International Prostate Symptom Score IPSS güncel üroloji pratiğinde en sık kullanılan, tedavi kararının verilmesinde etkili semptom skorlarından biridir. Bu çalışmada farklı sebeplerle polikliniğe başvuran hastalara önce IPSS formu verilerek tamamlaması istenmiş takiben iki farklı merkezde eğitimlerine devam eden 2. yıl asistanı ve yine 2 farklı merkezde görevli uzman doktorlar eşliğinde farklı zamanlarda doldurulan IPSS sorgulama formuna verilen cevaplar değerlendirilerek aralarındaki farklar tartışılmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: İki farklı merkeze Kasım 2011-Ağustos 2012 tarihleri arasında başvuran 50 yaş üzerindeki erkek hastalara uluslararası prostat semptom skoru formu verilerek doldurmaları istendi.Aynı sorgulama hastaya 2. yıl asistanı ve uzman doktor tarafından farklı zamanlarda uygulandı. Bulgular: Sorgulama formunu 3 farklı şekilde tamamlayan en az ilkokul mezunu toplam 143 hasta değerlendirmeye alındı. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 55,6 50-71 olarak saptandı. Çalışmada hastaların ortalama skoru 14,3±6.93 olarak hesaplanırken, asistan eşliğinde ortalama skor 17,2±6,16; uzman doktor eşliğinde sorgulama ile 18,0±5,72 olarak hesaplandı. Grupların ortalamaları arasındaki fark anlamlı bulundu p

Keywords

Uluslararası prostat semptom skoru , sorgulama formları , değerlendirme

Is ınternational prostate symptom score questionnair form evaluated differently by the patient, By the assistant and by the specialist physician?

Abstract

Objective: International Prostate Symptom Score IPSS is one of the most commonly used symptom scores that effects treatment decision in the current urologic practice. In this study, patients admitted to our outpatient clinic in two different centers for different reasons were asked to complete IPSS form himself and then with the help of second year assistants and lastly with the help of specialist doctors working at the same center. The answers given at different times are discussed by evaluating the differences between them. Materials and Methods: Between November 2011 - September 2012 male patients over the age of 50 international prostate symptom score questionnaire forms were given form in two different centers. The same inquiry form were applied with the help of a second year assistant and a specialist at different times Results: Inquiry form completed in 3 different ways by a total of 143 patients were evaluated. The mean age of patients was 56.9 50-71 . In this study, patients’ mean score was calculated as 18,3 ± 9,93 and the average score accompanied by an assistant was 22,2 ± 9,16 and lastly by a specialist physician it was calculated to be 25,0 ± 8,72.The difference between the groups was significant p

Keywords

International prostate symptom score , questionnaire , evaluation

References

• Barry MJ. Evaluation of symptoms and quality of life in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2001;58:25-32.
• Netto Jşnior NR, de Lima ML. The influence of patient edu- cation level on the International Prostatic Symptom Score. J Urol 1995;154:97-9.
• Russo F, Di Pasquale B, Romano G, Vicentini C, Manieri C, Tubaro A. International prostate symptom score: com- parison of doctor and patient). Arch Ital Urol Androl. 1998;70:15-24.
• Plante M, Corcos J, Gregoire I, Belanger MF, Brock G, Ros- singol M. The international prostate symptom score: physi- cian versus self-administration in the quantification of symptomatology. Urology 1996;47:326-8.
• Cam K, Akman Y, Çiçekci B, Şenel F, Erol A. Mode of ad- ministration of international prostate symptom score in pa- tients with lower urinary tract symptoms: physician vs self. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2004;7:41-4.
• Bozlu M, Doruk E, Akbay E, Ulusoy E, Cayan S,Acar D, et al. Effect of administration mode (patient vs physician) and patient’s educational level on the Turkish version of the In- ternational Prostate Symptom Score. Int J Urol 2002;9:417- 21.
• Johnson TV, Goodman M, Master VA. The efficacy of writ- ten screening tools in an inner city hospital: literacy ba- sed limitations on patient access to appropriate care. J Urol. 2007;178:623-9.
• Master VA, Johnson TV, Abbasi A, Ehrlich SS, Kleris RS, Abbasi S, et al. Poorly numerate patients in an inner city hospital misunderstand the American Urological Associati- on symptom score. Urology. 2010 ;75:148-52.
• O’Connor RC, Bales GT, Avila D, Gerber GS.Variability of the International Prostate Symptom Score in men with lower urinary tract symptoms. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2003;37:35-7.
• Badia X, Rodríguez F, Carballido J, García Losa M, Unda M, Dal-Ré R, et al. ESECI-98 Group. Influence of sociodemog- raphic and health status variables on the American Urologi- cal Association symptom scores in patients with lower uri- nary tract symptoms. Urology 2001;57:71-7.
• Rodrigues Netto N Jr, de Lima ML, de Andrade EF, Apuzzo F, da Silva MB, Davidzon IM,et al. Latin American study on patient acceptance of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) in the evaluation of symptomatic benign pros- tatic hyperplasia. Urology 1997; 49: 46–9.