BJU international
June 30, 2026 · via Europe PMC
Health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcome measures in economic evaluation of urological technologies: challenges and opportunities.
Bahnasawi ME, Moss C, Kinsella N, Wong KA, Hemelrijck MV.
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
HRQoL and PROMs are the foundation of cost-utility analyses in urology, but instrument choice and mapping to utilities add uncertainty.
What was studied
Narrative review of how health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcome measures are used in economic evaluations across urological conditions.
Key findings
- Generic tools such as EQ-5D allow comparison but may miss urinary symptoms.
- Disease-specific tools need mapping to utilities, adding uncertainty.
- PROM-derived QALY differences can decide cost-effectiveness in trials such as TRIUMPH, SIMS and ROSETTA.
Clinical relevance
Relevant to those designing trials or judging health technology assessments of urological interventions.
Who should care
Limitations
Narrative review without systematic search methods.
Include well-chosen PROMs in urological trials and interpret cost-effectiveness claims with attention to the instruments used.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
Objective
To examine the role of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessments and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the economic evaluation of urological interventions, highlighting methodological challenges, and identifying areas for future development.
Methods
This narrative review synthesises key frameworks for economic evaluation in urology, describes methods for utility derivation, and critically appraises the application of both generic and disease-specific PROMs. Evidence is drawn from major urological trials and model-based evaluations, with attention to their impact on health technology assessment decisions.
Results
Patient-reported outcome measures underpin cost-utility analyses across the full spectrum of urological conditions, including benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, bladder cancer, renal cancer, and prostate cancer. Generic instruments such as the EuroQoL five Dimensions (EQ-5D) and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) facilitate cross-disease comparison but may lack sensitivity to urological symptoms. Disease-specific tools (e.g., International Prostate Symptom Score, Overactive Bladder Questionnaire, 26-item Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite) provide granularity but often require mapping to utility values, introducing uncertainty. Trial-based evaluations (e.g., Trans European Research into the use of Management Policies for LUTS suggestive of BPH in Primary Healthcare [TRIUMPH], Single-Incision Mini-Slings [SIMS], Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs BoTulinum Toxin Assessment [ROSETTA]) demonstrate that PROM-derived quality-adjusted life year differences can decisively influence cost-effectiveness. Surgery-related PROMs including the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure can capture important short-term recovery outcomes not measured by generic tools.
Conclusions
Health-related quality of life and PROMs are foundational to value-based urological care. Accurate and context-sensitive measurement ensures that cost-utility analyses reflect patient experience as well as clinical outcomes. Future priorities include development of preference-based urology-specific PROMs, improved digital/electronic PROM capture, validation of mapping algorithms, and integration of surgery-related PROMs into economic evaluations.
DOI
10.1111/bju.70365
PMID
42381123
PMCID
PMC13655207
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed