Dataset Information

Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are currently collected from trial participants using paper questionnaires by the Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR-CTSU). Streamlining PRO collection using electronic questionnaires (ePRO) may improve data collection and patient experience. Here, we outline our protocol for a Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE), which investigates the acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials.

Methods and analysis

SPRUCE was developed alongside patient and public contributors. SPRUCE runs in multiple host trials with a partially randomised patient preference design, allowing participants to be randomised or choose their preference of electronic or paper questionnaires. Questionnaires are scheduled in accordance with host trial follow-up. The primary objective will assess differences in return rates (compliance) between ePRO and paper PROs at the first timepoint post-host trial intervention in the randomised group. Paper PRO compliance is expected to be 90%. 244 randomised participants are required to exclude ≤80% compliance rates with ePRO (10% non-inferiority margin, with 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05). SPRUCE aims to assess acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials, establish whether ePRO is acceptable to ICR-CTSU trial participants and can capture complete PRO data, consistent with paper PROs.

Ethics and dissemination

The SPRUCE protocol (ICR-CTSU/2021/10074) was approved by the Coventry and Warwick Central Research Ethics Committee (21/WM/0223) on 21 October 2021. Results will be disseminated via presentations, publications and lay summaries. No participant identifiable data will be included.

Trial registration

SWAT169.

SUBMITTER: Philipps L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10514621 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study.

Philipps Lara L Foster Stephanie S Gardiner Deborah D Gath Jacqui J Gillman Alexa A Haviland Joanne J Hill Elizabeth E King Diana D Manning Georgina G Stiles Morgaine M Hall Emma E Lewis Rebecca R

BMJ open 20230921 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are currently collected from trial participants using paper questionnaires by the Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR-CTSU). Streamlining PRO collection using electronic questionnaires (ePRO) may improve data collection and patient experience. Here, we outline our protocol for a Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE), which investigates the ac ...[more]

PMID: 37734892

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BackgroundThere is currently limited evidence on the level and intensity of physical activity in individuals with hemophilia A. Mobile technologies can offer a rigorous and reliable alternative to support data collection processes but they are often associated with poor user retention. The lack of longitudinal continuity in their use can be partly attributed to the insufficient consideration of stakeholder inputs in the development process of mobile apps. Several user-centered models have been proposed to guarantee that a thorough knowledge of the end user needs is considered in the development process of mobile apps.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to design and validate an electronic patient-reported outcome mobile app that requires sustained active input by individuals during POWER, an observational study that aims at evaluating the relationship between physical activity levels and bleeding in patients with hemophilia A.MethodsWe adopted a user-centered design and engaged several stakeholders in the development and usability testing of this mobile app. During the concept generation and ideation phase, we organized a need-assessment focus group (FG) with patient representatives to elicit specific design requirements for the end users. We then conducted 2 exploratory FGs to seek additional inputs for the app's improvement and 2 confirmatory FGs to validate the app and test its usability in the field through the mobile health app usability questionnaire.ResultsThe findings from the thematic analysis of the need-assessment FG revealed that there was a demand for sense making, for simplification of app functionalities, for maximizing integration, and for minimizing the feeling of external control. Participants involved in the later stages of the design refinement contributed to improving the design further by upgrading the app's layout and making the experience with the app more efficient through functions such as chatbots and visual feedback on the number of hours a wearable device had been worn, to ensure that the observed data were actually registered. The end users rated the app highly during the quantitative assessment, with an average mobile health app usability questionnaire score of 5.32 (SD 0.66; range 4.44-6.23) and 6.20 (SD 0.43; range 5.72-6.88) out of 7 in the 2 iterative usability testing cycles.ConclusionsThe results of the usability test indicated a high, growing satisfaction with the electronic patient-reported outcome app. The adoption of a thorough user-centered design process using several types of FGs helped maximize the likelihood of sustained retention of the app's users and made it fit for data collection of relevant outcomes in the observational POWER study. The continuous use of the app and the actual level of engagement will be evaluated during the ongoing trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04165135; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04165135.

Project description:IntroductionMore people are living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis. There is limited understanding of the long-term effects of cancer and cancer treatment on quality of life and personal and household finances when compared to people without cancer. In a separate protocol we have proposed to link de-identified data from electronic primary care and hospital records for a large population of cancer survivors and matched controls. In this current protocol, we propose the linkage of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures data to the above data for a subset of this population. The aim of this study is to investigate the full impact of living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis compared to age and gender matched controls. A secondary aim is to test the feasibility of the collection of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMS) data and the linkage procedures of the PROMs data to electronic health records data.Materials and methodsThis is a cross-sectional study, aiming to recruit participants treated at the Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust. Eligible patients will be cancer survivors at around 5 years post-diagnosis (breast, colorectal and ovarian cancer) and non-cancer patient matched controls attending dermatology out-patient clinics. They will be identified by running a query on the Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust patient records system. Approximately 6000 patients (2000 cases and 4000 controls) will be invited to participate via post. Participants will be invited to complete PROMs assessing factors such as quality of life and finances, which can be completed on paper or online (surveys includes established instruments, and bespoke instruments (demographics, financial costs). This PROMs data will then be linked to routinely collected de-identified data from patient's electronic primary care and hospital records.DiscussionThis innovative work aims to create a truly 'comprehensive patient record' to provide a broad picture of what happens to cancer patients across their cancer pathway, and the long-term impact of cancer treatment. Comparisons can be made between the cases and controls, to identify the aspects of life that has had the greatest impact following a cancer diagnosis. The feasibility of linking PROMs data to electronic health records can also be assessed. This work can inform future support offered to people living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis, clinical practice, and future research methodologies.

Project description:ObjectivesA wide range of electronic devices can be used for data collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although comparisons between electronic and paper-based PRO measures have been undertaken in asthmatics, it is currently uncertain whether electronic questionnaires work equally as well as paper versions in elderly subjects with COPD. The aim of this study was to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS) and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).DesignA randomised cross-over design was used to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the two tools. The interval between the two administrations was 1 week.SettingElectronic versions were self-administered under supervision using a tablet computer at our outpatient clinic (secondary care hospital in Japan) while paper questionnaires completed at home were requested to be returned by mail. It was intended that half of the patients completed the electronic versions of both questionnaires first, followed by the paper versions while the other half completed the paper versions ﬁrst.ParticipantsEighty-one subjects with stable COPD were included.ResultsThe E-RS total scores (possible range 0-40) were 6.8±7.4 and 5.0±6.6 in the paper-based and electronic versions, respectively, and the CAT scores (possible range 0-40) were 10.0±7.4 and 8.6±7.8. In both questionnaires, higher scores indicate worse status. The relationship between electronic and paper versions showed significant reliability for both the E-RS total score and CAT score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.82 and 0.89, respectively; both p<0.001). However, both the E-RS total and CAT scores were significantly higher in the paper versions (p<0.05).ConclusionsIn both cases, the two versions of the same questionnaire cannot be used interchangeably even though they have both been validated.

Dataset Information

Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration

Publications

Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets