Study Protocol for a Focus Group Discussion About the Patients' Perspective on Carotid Endarterectomy
- PMID: 39305507
- PMCID: PMC11804139
- DOI: 10.1177/15385744241286585
Study Protocol for a Focus Group Discussion About the Patients' Perspective on Carotid Endarterectomy
Abstract
Introduction: The outcomes of carotid surgery are commonly evaluated using parameters such as mortality and stroke. The importance of these parameters is based on doctors' and scientific perspectives. Presently, patient centered health care aims to value the evaluation from patients' perspective, mostly using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). The true significance of outcomes of carotid surgery that matter most to the patients is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to identify and verify the patients' perspective on carotid surgery for patients with a symptomatic and significant carotid stenosis.
Methods and outcomes: An exploratory semi-structured focus group discussion will be used, as a quality research method. Three groups consisting of 8 patients (n = 24), who underwent the carotid endarterectomy because of a significant and symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery, will be enrolled. If data saturation is not reached, the sample size will be expanded. An expert medical psychologist will lead the focus group discussions. The interviews will be recorded, transcribed 'verbatim' and analyzed after each session. Items valuable to patients regarding their surgery and recovery will be discussed. This protocol will be published prior to the start of the Focus Group Discussion.
Discussion: Patients' perspective on outcomes regarding their carotid surgery will be explored and tried to be identified. The results of the focus group discussions may fuel the ongoing global discussion on improving evidence based and patient reported outcome measures and will help the clinical physician to 'understand' their patients better. Focus group discussions may aid in the purpose of verification of PROs and PROMs.
Keywords: carotid; critical; decision; endarterectomy; eversion; focus group; grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations; mortality; patch angioplasty; patient centered outcomes; patient’s perspective; stroke; vascular surgery; verified patient-reported outcomes.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
-
- Marsman MS, Wetterslev J, Jahrome AK, et al. Carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure in patients with symptomatic and significant stenosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials. Syst Rev. 2021;10:139. - PMC - PubMed
-
- Essat M, Aber A, Phillips P, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in carotid artery revascularization: systematic review and psychometric analysis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2018;50:275-283. - PubMed
-
- Aber A, Howard A, Buckley H, Georgina W, Michaels J. Impact of carotid artery stenosis on quality of life: a systematic review. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2018;12(2):213-222. - PubMed
-
- International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement . ICHOM Patient-Centered Outcom Measures. Boston, MA: International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement. https://www.ichom.org/patient-centered-outcome-measures/ (accessed on March 2nd 2024).
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous
