|1||To compare the completeness of data across the three data collection approaches.||Total number of completed surveys will be identified in and compared across each of the three PROMS data collection approaches. Both the paper and electronic version provide capacity for patients to decline to answer any question. Provision in the electronic survey exists to alert patients where fields are left blank to prevent missing data issues.|
|2||To measure the cost of data collection of three different methods: Telephone, Mail (Postal services) and Email for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) data in PROC-Vic.||
The Activity Based Costing (ABC) method will be followed to estimate the cost of the operational activities of the three different methods of follow up.|
The costing data will be collected from provider perspective. Table 3: Describes the itemized costs of the 3 different methods.
|3||To compare the cost and effectiveness of three different methods of data collection||Cost-effectiveness: Total cost (Personnel, recurrent, supply---)/Number of completed follow-up patients|
|4||To develop a model to determine the cost for national scale-up of PROMs data collection method with EPIC-26 survey in Australia.||
A cost projection model will be developed based on most efficient approach. The model will use epidemiological data and estimated cost parameters. Estimated incidence data on national prostate cancer cases and completed follow up of patients will be forecasted. Using estimated cost data will help to determine the cost for national scale-up of follow up per year.|
A sensitivity analysis will be conducted with different assumptions e.g. (1) total number of prostate cancer patients; (2) completed follow up surveys and; (3) cost.
|5||To provide recommendations for most cost-effective approach for complete follow-up of prostate cancer patient||A comprehensive report with recommendations will be developed.|