Purpose. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in evaluating the outcomes of surgical treatment health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and may be incorporated into related clinical quality registries. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating PROMs into the Australian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR). Methods. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with women with SUI (N = 12) and their managing clinicians (N = 11) in Victoria, Australia. Interview topicscovered content and face validity, appropriateness, and acceptability of three incontinence-specific, two pain, one anxiety and depression, one sexual function and one patient global impression of improvement instruments identified through the literature to determine their suitability and acceptability for the APFPR. We analysed interview data into topics using conventional content analysis.Results. Study participants agreed that PROMs were needed for the APFPR. Both participant groups suggested that some of the instruments were ambiguous, therefore, only three instruments (one incontinence-specific, sexual function and patient global impression of improvement) will be included in the APFPR. Both clinicians and women agreed it would be appropriate to answer PROMs at baseline and then at six and 12 months post-surgically. Email, phone call and mail-out of the instruments were the preferred options for administration. Conclusions. Most women and clinicians supported the feasibility of incorporating PROMs in the APFPR. Participants believed the PROMs would demonstrate useful aggregate HRQoL data, facilitate research and have potential for use in individual care.

Purpose Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in evaluating the outcomes of surgical treatment health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and may be incorporated into related clinical quality registries. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating PROMs into the Australian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR). Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with women with SUI (N = 12) and their managing clinicians (N = 11) in Victoria, Australia. Interview topics covered content and face validity, appropriateness, and acceptability of three incontinence-specific, two pain, one anxiety and depression, one sexual function and one patient global impression of improvement instruments identified through the literature to determine their suitability and acceptability for the APFPR. We analysed interview data into topics using conventional content analysis. Results Study participants agreed that PROMs were needed for the APFPR. Both participant groups suggested that some of the instruments were ambiguous, therefore only three instruments (one incontinence-specific, sexual function and patient global impression of improvement) will be included in the APFPR. Both clinicians and women agreed it would be appropriate to answer PROMs at baseline and then at 6- and 12-month postsurgically. Email, phone call and mail-out of the instruments were the preferred options for administration. Conclusion Most women and clinicians supported the feasibility of incorporating PROMs in the APFPR. Participants believed the PROMs would demonstrate useful aggregate HRQoL data and have potential for use in individual care.

Background: The Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR) captures clinical and surgical data in women undergoing pelvic floor procedures. The inclusion of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the APFPR is a critical activity providing the additional patient perspective of their condition prior to surgery as well as monitoring beyond the usual post-surgical follow-up time. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of seven PROMs for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to determine the most suitable instrument for the APFPR. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with women with POP (n = 15) and their treating clinicians (n = 11) in Victoria, Australia. Interview topics covered appropriateness, content, and acceptability of seven POP-specific instruments identified through the literature to determine their suitability and acceptability for inclusion in the APFPR. We analysed the interview data using conventional content analysis. Results: All study participants agreed that PROMs were needed for the APFPR. Both women and clinicians suggested that some of the instruments were ambiguous, too long and confusing. The Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire was accepted widely amongst women and clinicians and recommended for inclusion in the APFPR. All participants agreed it would be appropriate to capture PROMs before surgery, and then followed up post-surgically. Email, phone call or postal mail-out were the preferred options for PROMs data collection. Conclusion: Most women and clinicians supported incorporating PROMs in the APFPR. Study participants believed that capturing PROMs would have potential use in individual care and improve outcomes of women with POP.