Dataset Information

Management of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Alerts in Clinical Trials: A Cross Sectional Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provides valuable information to inform patient-centered care, but may also reveal 'PRO alerts': psychological distress or physical symptoms that may require an immediate response. Ad-hoc management of PRO alerts in clinical trials may result in suboptimal patient care or potentially bias trial results. To gain greater understanding of current practice in PRO alert management we conducted a national survey of personnel involved in clinical trials with a PRO endpoint.

Methods and findings

We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 767 UK-based research nurses, data managers/coordinators, trial managers and chief/principal investigators involved in clinical trials using PROs. Respondents were self-selected volunteers from a non-randomised sample of eligible individuals recruited via 55 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units and 19 Comprehensive Local Research Networks. Questions centred on the proportion of trial personnel encountering alerts, how staff responded to PRO alerts and whether current guidance was deemed sufficient to support research personnel. We undertook descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and directed thematic analysis of free-text comments. 20% of research nurses did not view completed PRO questionnaires and were not in a position to discover alerts, 39-50% of the remaining respondent group participants reported encountering PRO alerts. Of these, 83% of research nurses and 54% of data managers/trial coordinators reported taking action to assist the trial participant, but less than half were able to record the intervention in the trial documentation. Research personnel reported current PRO alert guidance/training was insufficient.

Conclusions

Research personnel are intermittently exposed to PRO alerts. Some intervene to help trial participants, but are not able to record this intervention in the trial documentation, risking co-intervention bias. Other staff do not check PRO information during the trial, meaning alerts may remain undiscovered, or do not respond to alerts if they are inadvertently encountered; both of which may impact on patient safety. Guidance is needed to support PRO alert management that protects the interests of trial participants whilst avoiding potential bias.

SUBMITTER: Kyte D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4718453 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies.MethodsTwo independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial.ResultsThirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals.ConclusionsPRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste.Trial registrationSystematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence suggests there are inconsistencies in patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment and reporting in clinical trials, which may limit the use of these data to inform patient care. For trials with a PRO endpoint, routine inclusion of key PRO information in the protocol may help improve trial conduct and the reporting and appraisal of PRO results; however, it is currently unclear exactly what PRO-specific information should be included. The aim of this review was to summarize the current PRO-specific guidance for clinical trial protocol developers.Methods and findingsWe searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and Cochrane Library databases (inception to February 2013) for PRO-specific guidance regarding trial protocol development. Further guidance documents were identified via Google, Google scholar, requests to members of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered clinical trials units and international experts. Two independent investigators undertook title/abstract screening, full text review and data extraction, with a third involved in the event of disagreement. 21,175 citations were screened and 54 met the inclusion criteria. Guidance documents were difficult to access: electronic database searches identified just 8 documents, with the remaining 46 sourced elsewhere (5 from citation tracking, 27 from hand searching, 7 from the grey literature review and 7 from experts). 162 unique PRO-specific protocol recommendations were extracted from included documents. A further 10 PRO recommendations were identified relating to supporting trial documentation. Only 5/162 (3%) recommendations appeared in ≥50% of guidance documents reviewed, indicating a lack of consistency.ConclusionsPRO-specific protocol guidelines were difficult to access, lacked consistency and may be challenging to implement in practice. There is a need to develop easily accessible consensus-driven PRO protocol guidance. Guidance should be aimed at ensuring key PRO information is routinely included in appropriate trial protocols, in order to facilitate rigorous collection/reporting of PRO data, to effectively inform patient care.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following treatment for bladder cancer (BC).ObjectiveTo determine this, we undertook a cross-sectional survey covering 10% of the English population.Design, setting, and participantsParticipants 1-10 yr from diagnosis were identified through national cancer registration data.InterventionA postal survey was administered containing generic HRQOL and BC-specific outcome measures. Findings were compared with those of the general population and other pelvic cancer patients.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisGeneric HRQOL was measured using five-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30. BC-specific outcomes were derived from EORTC QLQ-BLM30 and EORTC QLQ-NMIBC24.Results and limitationsA total of 1796 surveys were completed (response rate 55%), including 868 (48%) patients with non-muscle-invasive BC, 893 (50%) patients who received radiotherapy or radical cystectomy, and 35 (1.9%) patients for whom treatment was unknown. Most (69%) of the participants reported at least one problem in any EQ-5D dimension. Age/sex-adjusted generic HRQOL outcomes were similar across all stages and treatment groups, whilst problems increased with age (problems in one or more EQ-5D dimensions: <65 yr [67% {95% confidence interval or CI: 61-74}] vs 85+ yr [84% {95% CI: 81-89}], p = 0.016) and long-term conditions (no conditions [53% {95% CI: 48-58}] vs more than four conditions [94% {95% CI: 90-97}], p < 0.001). Sexual problems were reported commonly in men, increasing with younger age and radical treatment. Younger participants (under 65 yr) reported more financial difficulties (mean score 20 [95% CI: 16-25]) than those aged 85+ yr (6.8 [4.5-9.2], p < 0.001). HRQOL for BC patients (for comparison, males with problems in one or more EQ-5D dimensions 69% [95% CI: 66-72]) was significantly worse than what has been found after colorectal and prostate cancers and in the general population (51% [95% CI: 48-53], all p < 0.05).ConclusionsHRQOL following BC appears to be relatively independent of disease stage, treatment, and multimodal care. Issues are reported with sexual function and financial toxicity. HRQOL after BC is worse than that after other pelvic cancers.Patient summaryPatients living with bladder cancer often have reduced quality of life, which may be worse than that for other common pelvic cancer patients. Age and other illnesses appear to be more important in determining this quality of life than the treatments received. Many men complain of sexual problems. Younger patients have financial worries.

Project description:BackgroundThe rapid diffusion of the internet has decreased consumer reliance on health care providers for health information and facilitated the patients' ability to be an agent in control of their own health. However, empirical evidence is limited regarding the effects of health-related internet use among older adults, which is complicated by the proliferation of online health and medical sources of questionable scientific accuracy.ObjectiveWe explore the effects of health-related internet use, education, and eHealth literacy on medical encounters and patient-reported outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes are categorized into two dimensions: (1) self-reported health problem and (2) affective distress (feeling worried and anxious) due to information obtained. We were particularly interested in whether education and eHealth literacy moderate the association between perceived strain in medical encounters and patient-reported outcomes.MethodsOur study sample consisted of online panel members who have used the internet as a resource for health information, randomly drawn from one of the largest probability-based online research panels. This paper specifically reports results obtained from older panel members (age≥60 years: n=194). First, we examined descriptive statistics and bivariate associations (Pearson correlations and independent samples t tests). We used hierarchical ordinary least squares regression analyses by running separate regressions for each patient-reported outcome. In model 1, we entered the main effects. In model 2, technology and medical encounter variables were included. Model 3 added the statistical interaction terms.ResultsAge (β=-.17; P=.02), gender (β=-.22; P=.01), and medical satisfaction (β=-.28; P=.01) were significant predictors of self-reported health problems. Affective distress was positively predicted by gender (β=.13; P=.05) and satisfaction with medical encounters (β=.34; P<.001) but negatively predicted by education (β=-.18; P=.03) and eHealth literacy (β=-.32; P=.01). The association between experiencing a health problem in relation to health-related internet use and perception of strained medical encounters was greater among respondents with lower levels of education (β=-.55; P=.04). There was also a significant interaction between education and eHealth literacy in predicting the level of affective distress (β=-.60; P=.05), which indicated that higher levels of education predicted lower averages of feeling anxiety and worry despite lower eHealth literacy. Older women reported higher averages of affective distress (β=.13; P=.05), while older men reported higher averages of experiencing a self-reported health problem (β=-.22; P=.01).ConclusionsThis study provides evidence for the effect of health-related internet use on patient-reported outcomes with implications for medical encounters. The results could be used to guide educational and eHealth literacy interventions for older individuals.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with significantly diminished health-related quality of life. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are considered important in RA; however, some symptoms such as morning joint stiffness (MJS) and fatigue that are considered important by patients are not captured by the American College of Rheumatology "core set" measures for RA trials. The US Food and Drug Administration has endorsed electronic capture of clinical trial data including PROs, and electronic PRO (ePRO) systems may lead to more accurate and complete data capture, improved compliance, and patient acceptance compared with paper-based methods. Our objective was to assess the implementation of ePRO measures of Duration and Severity of MJS, Severity of Worst Tiredness, and Severity of Worst Joint Pain in baricitinib RA-BEAM and RA-BUILD phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS:A daily electronic diary (handheld device; Invivodata®, Inc.) was utilized to capture PRO data in the RCTs. Three "reporting window" options were incorporated to accommodate differences in patients' routine daily schedules, and alarms were programmed for each reporting window. Duration of MJS was recorded in "hours and minutes," and Severity of MJS, Worst Tiredness, and Worst Joint Pain were captured on a 0 to 10 rating scale, with a higher score indicating more severe symptoms. The patients and site staff were trained to use the daily electronic diary. RESULTS:Patients with moderately to severely active RA used the daily electronic diary in the RA-BEAM study (N?=?1305) and RA-BUILD study (N?=?684). The average compliance, calculated as total days completed by patients compared with total days expected to complete the diary, through Week 12 was high (RA-BEAM 94% patients; RA-BUILD 93% patients), potentially attributable to appropriate training, clarity of instructions, simple user interface, and electronic device design. Identified process challenges included non-timely issuance of the device, low battery, inadequate training of patients before data collection, inappropriate diary set-up, and first response entry 1?day after the baseline visit. CONCLUSIONS:High compliance rates support the use of the daily electronic PRO diary in large RCTs. Despite the anticipated issues, the daily electronic diary is expected to reduce recall bias and improve the quality of PRO data collection. TRIAL REGISTRATION:RA-BEAM ( NCT01710358 ) and RA-BUILD ( NCT01721057 ).

Project description:BackgroundOncology has been facing increasing outpatient activity associated with higher cancer incidence, better survival rates, and more treatment options. Innovative technological solutions could help deal with this increasing demand. Using digital patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to identify patients who need a face-to-face (FTF) appointment is a potential approach.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the feasibility of digital PROM questionnaires to enable remote symptom monitoring for patients undergoing cancer treatment and their ability to highlight the requirement for an FTF appointment.MethodsThis study was performed at a tertiary oncology center between December 2018 and February 2019. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were adapted into patient-friendly language to form the basis of treatment-specific digital questionnaires covering specific cancer drugs and radiotherapy treatments. These treatment-specific digital PROM questionnaires were scored by both patients and their clinicians during FTF appointments. Patients and clinicians did not see each other's scored PROMs. Agreement between patients and clinicians was assessed using descriptive statistics. Patient and staff feedback was also obtained.ResultsIn total, 90 patients participated in the study across 10 different treatment pathways. By comparing paired patient and clinician responses, the sensitivity of the patient-completed questionnaires in correctly highlighting the need for FTF review was 94% (44/47), and all patients with severe or grade 3+ symptoms were identified (6/6, 100%). Patient-completed PROMs appropriately revealed that 29% (26/90) of the participating patients did not need FTF review based on their symptoms alone. Certain oncological treatment pathways, such as immunotherapy, were found to have a larger proportion of patients with minimal symptoms than others, such as conventional chemotherapy. Patient and staff feedback showed high approval of digital PROMs and their potential for use in remote monitoring.ConclusionsDigital PROM questionnaires can feasibly highlight the need for FTF review in oncology clinics for treatment. Their use with specific treatments could safely reduce the requirement for FTF care, and future work should evaluate their application in the remote monitoring of patients.