(Avrasya Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi, Trabzon, Türkiye / Medical Park Karadeniz Hastanesi, Üroloji Kliniği, Trabzon, Türkiye)
Güner Kemal ÖZGÜR
(Medical Park Karadeniz Hastanesi, Üroloji Kliniği, Trabzon, Türkiye)
Yıl: 2021Cilt: 8Sayı: 1ISSN: 2148-9580Sayfa Aralığı: 46 - 49İngilizce

22 0
The Effective Way in Answering the IPSS: Patients Themselves or with the Physician?
Objective: This study aimed to compare the answers given to the International Prostate Symptom score (IPSS) questionnaire by patients with thehelp of a physician according to age and education level.Materials and Methods: The study included 204 patients, aged 50-75 years, who presented for the first time at the Urology Department withcomplaints of lower urinary tract symptoms and had not previously completed an IPSS form. The patients were given IPSS questionnaires and askedto complete them. Then the patients completed the IPSS forms again with the help of their physicians. The results were compared statistically.Results: When the education level was assessed separately, a significant difference was observed regarding the IPSS form completed with the helpof a physician (p<0.001). When the patients were divided by age as <60 years and ≥60 years, a statistically significant difference was seen in theIPSS values (p<0.001).Conclusion: Regardless of age and education level, a difference was found between filling the IPSS form with the assistance of a physician and bypatients alone. Clinicians should consider this situation.
DergiAraştırma MakalesiErişime Açık
  • 1. Barry MJ. Evaluation of symptoms and quality of life in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2001;58:25-32.
  • 2. Netto Junior NR, de Lima ML. The influence of patient education level on the International Prostatic Symptom Score. J Urol 1995;154:97-99.
  • 3. Badia X, Rodríguez F, Carballido J, García Losa M, Unda M, Dal-Ré R, Roset M; ESECI-98 Group. Influence of sociodemographic and health status variables on the American Urological Association symptom scores in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. Urology 2001;57:71-77.
  • 4. Badía X, García-Losa M, Dal-Ré R. Ten-language translation and harmonization of the International Prostate Symptom Score: developing a methodology for multinational clinical trials. Eur Urol 1997;31:129-140.
  • 5. Reohrborn GC. Beningn prostatic hyperplasia: etiology, pathophysiology, epidemiology, and natural history. In: Kavaoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA, editors. Campbell-Wash urology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Esavier; 2012. p. 2576-2581.
  • 6. Barry MJ, Girman CJ, O’Leary MP, Walker-Corkery ES, Binkowitz BS, Cockett AT, Guess HA; The Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Treatment Outcomes Study Group. Using Repeated Measures of Symptom Score, Uroflowmetry and Prostate Specific Antigen in the Clinical Management of Prostate Disease. J Urol 1995;153:99-103.
  • 7. Moon TD, Brannan W, Stone NN, Ercole C, Crawford ED, Chodak G, Brawer M, Heisey D, Bruskewitz RC. Effect of age, educational status, ethnicity and geographic location on prostate symptom scores. J Urol 1994;152:1498- 1500.
  • 8. Cam K, Senel F, Akman Y, Erol A. The efficacy of an abbreviated model of the International Prostate Symptom Score in evaluating benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 2003;91:186-189.
  • 9. Van der Walt CL, Heyns CF, Groeneveld AE, Edlin RS, van Vuuren SP. Prospective comparison of a new visual prostate symptom score versus the international prostate symptom score in men with lower urinary tract symptoms. Urology 2011;78:17-20.
  • 10. Netto Júnior NR, de Lima ML. The influence of patient education level on the International Prostatic Symptom Score. J Urol 1995;154:97-99.
  • 11. Bozlu M, Doruk E, Akbay E, Ulusoy E, Cayan S, Acar D, Kanik EA. Effect of administration mode (patient vs physician) and patient’s educational level on the Turkish version of the International Prostate Symptom Score. Int J Urol 2002;9:417-421.
  • 12. Johnson TV, Goodman M, Master VA. The efficacy of written screening tools in an innercity hospital: literacy based limitations on patient access to appropriate care. J Urol 2007;178:623-629.
  • 13. MacDiarmid SA, Goodson TC, Holmes TM, Martin PR, Doyle RB. An assessment of the comprehension of the American Urological Association Symptom Index. J Urol 1998;159:873-874.

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © 2019 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.