Current practices in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection in clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of UK trial staff and management

被引:31
|
作者
Kyte, Derek [1 ]
Ives, Jonathan [2 ]
Draper, Heather [1 ]
Calvert, Melanie [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Inst Appl Hlth Res, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[2] Univ Bristol, Sch Social & Community Med, Bristol, Avon, England
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2016年 / 6卷 / 10期
关键词
QUALITY-OF-LIFE; HEART;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012281
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected in clinical trials should be administered in a standardised way across sites and routinely screened for avoidable missing data in order to maximise data quality/minimise risk of bias. Recent qualitative findings, however, have raised concerns about the consistency of PROM administration in UK trials. The purpose of this study was to determine the generalisability of these findings across the wider community of trial personnel. Design: Online cross-sectional survey. Setting: Participants were recruited from 55 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units and 19 Comprehensive Local Research Networks. Participants: Research nurses, data managers/ coordinators, trial managers and chief/principal investigators involved in clinical trials collecting PROMs. Analysis: We undertook descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and directed thematic analysis of freetext comments. Factors associated with the management of missing PRO data were explored using logistic regression. Results: Survey data from 767 respondents supported the generalisability of qualitative study findings, suggesting inconsistencies in PROM administration with regard to: the level of assistance given to trial participants; the timing of PROM completion in relation to the clinical consultation; and the management of missing data. Having >= 0 years experience in a research role was significantly associated with the appropriate management of missing PROM data (OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.82), p=0.035). There was a consensus that more PROM guidance was needed in future trials and agreement between professional groups about the necessary components. Conclusions: There are inconsistencies in the way PROMs are administered by trial staff. Such inconsistencies may reduce the quality of data and have the potential to introduce bias. There is a need for improved guidance in future trials that support trial personnel in conducting optimal PROM data collection to inform patient care.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Current practices in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection in trials: a survey of UK trial staff and management
    Kyte, Derek G.
    Ives, Jonathan
    Draper, Heather
    Calvert, Melanie J.
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2015, 24 : 156 - 156
  • [2] Management of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Alerts in Clinical Trials: A Cross Sectional Survey
    Kyte, Derek
    Ives, Jonathan
    Draper, Heather
    Calvert, Melanie
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (01):
  • [3] Current practices in patient-reported outcome (PRO) alert management in clinical trials
    Kyte, Derek
    Ives, Jonathan
    Draper, Heather
    Calvert, Melanie
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2014, 23 : 13 - 13
  • [4] Management of patient-reported outcome alerts: a cross sectional survey
    Kyte, Derek G.
    Ives, Jonathan
    Draper, Heather
    Calvert, Melanie J.
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2015, 24 : 25 - 26
  • [5] Patient, clinicians and trial staff views on the collection of patient-reported adverse events in Early Phase Clinical Trials
    Velikova, Galina
    Shearsmith, Leanne
    Kennedy, Fiona
    Gordon, Kathryn
    Croft, Julie
    Danson, Sarah
    Brown, Julia
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2019, 28 : S99 - S100
  • [6] Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Data Collection Systems in Oncology Clinical Trials: A Survey of Clinical Research Professionals (an Alliance Study)
    Cho, Youmin
    Smith, Ellen M. Lavoie
    Zahrieh, David
    Chow, Selina L.
    Williams, David A.
    Saint Arnault, Denise
    Jiang, Yun
    [J]. JCO CLINICAL CANCER INFORMATICS, 2023, 7
  • [7] Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Data Collection Systems in Oncology Clinical Trials: A Survey of Clinical Research Professionals (an Alliance Study)
    Cho, Youmin
    Smith, Ellen M. Lavoie
    Zahrieh, David
    Chow, Selina L.
    Williams, David A.
    Saint Arnault, Denise
    Jiang, Yun
    [J]. JCO CLINICAL CANCER INFORMATICS, 2023, 7
  • [8] Impact of Natalizumab on Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Clinical Practice Setting A Cross-Sectional Survey
    Kamat, Siddhesh A.
    Rajagopalan, Krithika
    Stephenson, Judith J.
    Agarwal, Sonalee
    [J]. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2009, 2 (02): : 105 - 112
  • [9] Impact of Natalizumab on Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Clinical Practice SettingA Cross-Sectional Survey
    Siddhesh A. Kamat
    Krithika Rajagopalan
    Judith J. Stephenson
    Sonalee Agarwal
    [J]. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2009, 2 : 105 - 112
  • [10] A cross-sectional study on the application of patient-reported outcome measurements in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine in mainland China
    Dong, Yue
    Liu, Lin
    Zhang, Xiaowen
    Gong, Yijia
    Yan, Shiyan
    Li, Wei
    Li, Shunping
    Rong, Hongguo
    Liu, Jianping
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY, 2023, 14