Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Data Collection Systems in Oncology Clinical Trials: A Survey of Clinical Research Professionals (an Alliance Study)

被引:0
|
作者
Cho, Youmin [1 ,7 ]
Smith, Ellen M. Lavoie [2 ]
Zahrieh, David [3 ]
Chow, Selina L. [4 ]
Williams, David A. [5 ]
Saint Arnault, Denise [6 ]
Jiang, Yun [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr Houston, Sch Biomed Informat, Houston, TX USA
[2] Univ Alabama Birmingham, Sch Nursing, Birmingham, AL USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Alliance Stat & Data Management Ctr, Rochester, MN USA
[4] Univ Chicago, Alliance Protocol Operat Off, Chicago, IL USA
[5] Univ Michigan, Med Sch, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[6] Univ Michigan, Sch Nursing, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[7] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr Houston, Sch Biomed Informat, 7000 FanninSt, Houston, TX 77030 USA
来源
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
PURPOSE To describe clinical research professionals (CRPs)' experiences with electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data collection systems in oncology clinical trials and identify correlates of CRPs' attitude toward technology. METHODS An online survey was conducted among 210 CRPs from 125 National Cancer Institute-funded research sites. Measures included CRPs' demographic characteristics, working years, employment locations, and previous experiences with various types of ePROs. Their attitude toward technology was measured by the Technology Attitude Scale-Adapted. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare two subdomains of attitude (perceived usefulness [PU] and perceived ease of use [PEU]). Multiple linear regression was used to explore correlates of (1) overall attitude, (2) PU, and (3) PEU. The significance level was 5%. RESULTS Participants' median age was 41 years (range, 21-67). Most were female (90%) and White (82%). More than half of the participants had previous experiences with web-based ePROs using patients' own devices (72%) or site-/sponsor-provided on-site devices (eg, kiosks or tablets; 64%). CRPs who were 60 years or older (beta = -0.32, P < .05) or worked for 10-20 years (beta = -0.11, P < .05) had relatively negative attitudes, controlling for other factors. Previous experiences with more ePRO types were associated with more positive attitudes (beta = 0.08, P = .02). Similar correlates were found with PU but not with PEU. CONCLUSION This study revealed that CRPs had various experiences with ePRO systems and attitudes toward technology. Age, working years, and previous experiences with ePROs were correlates of overall attitude toward technology and PU. These findings suggest necessary targeted training to facilitate ePRO use in oncology clinical trials by improving CRPs' awareness and attitude toward technology.
引用
下载
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Current practices in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection in clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of UK trial staff and management
    Kyte, Derek
    Ives, Jonathan
    Draper, Heather
    Calvert, Melanie
    BMJ OPEN, 2016, 6 (10):
  • [22] The use of patient-reported outcome research in modern ophthalmology: impact on clinical trials and routine clinical practice
    Braithwaite, Tasanee
    Calvert, Melanie
    Gray, Alastair
    Pesudovs, Konrad
    Denniston, Alastair K.
    PATIENT-RELATED OUTCOME MEASURES, 2019, 10 : 9 - 24
  • [23] Heterogeneity of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research
    Terheyden, Jan Henrik
    Gittel, Lisa
    Jungblut, Julie
    Taylor, Deanna J.
    Holz, Frank G.
    Crabb, David P.
    Finger, Robert P.
    HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2024, 22 (01)
  • [24] How to Include Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials
    Richard G. McGee
    Current Osteoporosis Reports, 2020, 18 : 480 - 485
  • [25] Patient-reported outcome instruments in clinical trials of systemic sclerosis
    Pauling, John D.
    Caetano, Joana
    Campochiaro, Corrado
    De Luca, Giacomo
    Gheorghiu, Ana Maria
    Lazzaroni, Maria Grazia
    Khanna, Dinesh
    JOURNAL OF SCLERODERMA AND RELATED DISORDERS, 2020, 5 (02) : 90 - 102
  • [26] How to Include Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials
    McGee, Richard G.
    CURRENT OSTEOPOROSIS REPORTS, 2020, 18 (05) : 480 - 485
  • [27] Application of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Clinical Trials in China
    Zhou, Hui
    Yao, Mi
    Gu, Xiaodan
    Liu, Mingrui
    Zeng, Ruifeng
    Li, Qin
    Chen, Tingjia
    He, Wen
    Chen, Xiao
    Yuan, Gang
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2022, 5 (05) : E2211644
  • [28] Translation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology Clinical Trials to Everyday Practice
    Ivatury, Srinivas Joga
    Hazard-Jenkins, Hannah W.
    Brooks, Gabriel A.
    McCleary, Nadine J.
    Wong, Sandra L.
    Schrag, Deborah
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 27 (01) : 65 - 72
  • [29] Translation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology Clinical Trials to Everyday Practice
    Srinivas Joga Ivatury
    Hannah W. Hazard-Jenkins
    Gabriel A. Brooks
    Nadine J. McCleary
    Sandra L. Wong
    Deborah Schrag
    Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2020, 27 : 65 - 72
  • [30] Rescuing Suboptimal Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument Data in Clinical Trials: A New Strategy
    Yang, Chengwu
    Vrana, Kent E.
    HEALTHCARE, 2018, 6 (01)