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
  • [31] Patient-reported outcomes in cancer survivors in Victoria, Australia: a cross-sectional survey
    Jefford, Michael
    Cross, Hannah
    Emery, Jon
    Glaser, Adam
    Lacey, Karen
    Lisy, Karolina
    McLachlan, Sue-Anne
    Ward, Andrew
    Waterhouse, Tamsin
    Bishop, Jim
    [J]. PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY, 2017, 26 : 7 - 7
  • [32] Capturing Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Data Electronically: The Past, Present, and Promise of ePRO Measurement in Clinical Trials
    Coons, Stephen Joel
    Eremenco, Sonya
    Lundy, J. Jason
    O'Donohoe, Paul
    O'Gorman, Hannah
    Malizia, William
    [J]. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2015, 8 (04): : 301 - 309
  • [33] Capturing Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Data Electronically: The Past, Present, and Promise of ePRO Measurement in Clinical Trials
    Stephen Joel Coons
    Sonya Eremenco
    J. Jason Lundy
    Paul O’Donohoe
    Hannah O’Gorman
    William Malizia
    [J]. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2015, 8 : 301 - 309
  • [34] Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection
    Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
    Jessica Roydhouse
    Samantha Cruz Rivera
    Paul Kamudoni
    Peter Schache
    Roger Wilson
    Richard Stephens
    Melanie Calvert
    [J]. Nature Communications, 13
  • [35] Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection
    Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee
    Roydhouse, Jessica
    Rivera, Samantha Cruz
    Kamudoni, Paul
    Schache, Peter
    Wilson, Roger
    Stephens, Richard
    Calvert, Melanie
    [J]. NATURE COMMUNICATIONS, 2022, 13 (01)
  • [36] Gaucher disease (GD)-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for clinical monitoring and for clinical trials
    Elstein, Deborah
    Klemen, Martin
    Panter, Charlotte
    Bonner, Nicola
    Johnson, Chloe
    Zimran, Ari
    [J]. MOLECULAR GENETICS AND METABOLISM, 2019, 126 (02) : S52 - S52
  • [37] PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURE FOR GIANT CELL ARTERITIS: CROSS-SECTIONAL VALIDATION STUDY
    Ndosi, Mwidimi
    Almeida, Celia
    Dawson, Jill
    Dures, Emma
    Greenwood, Rosemary
    Guly, Catherine
    Mackie, Sarah
    Bromhead, Alison
    Stern, Steve
    Robson, Joanna C.
    [J]. RHEUMATOLOGY, 2022, 61
  • [38] Quality of Life After Bladder Cancer: A Cross-sectional Survey of Patient-reported Outcomes
    Catto, James W. F.
    Downing, Amy
    Mason, Samantha
    Wright, Penny
    Absolom, Kate
    Bottomley, Sarah
    Hounsome, Luke
    Hussain, Syed
    Varughese, Mohini
    Raw, Caroline
    Kelly, Phil
    Glaser, Adam W.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2021, 79 (05) : 621 - 632
  • [39] Erratum to: Capturing Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Data Electronically: The Past, Present, and Promise of ePRO Measurement in Clinical Trials
    Stephen Joel Coons
    Sonya Eremenco
    J. Jason Lundy
    Paul O’Donohoe
    Hannah O’Gorman
    William Malizia
    [J]. The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2015, 8 : 571 - 571
  • [40] Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) Measures for Clinical Trials of COPD: The EXACT and E-RS
    Rennard, Stephen
    Leidy, Nancy K.
    Murray, Lindsey T.
    [J]. COPD-JOURNAL OF CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE, 2013, 10 (03) : 393 - 398