Electronic patient-reported outcome assessments: evaluating patient preference for the number of items per screen

Author:

Lord-Bessen Jennifer1,Rodriguez Danielle2,Coyne Karin2,Schaff Spencer2,Kalpadakis-Smith Alexandra3

Affiliation:

1. Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States)

2. Evidera

3. Signant Health

Abstract

Abstract Background: In clinical trials, the single-item-per-screen format is commonly used for electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs). However, participant preferences for this format over multiple items per screen have not been investigated. This study evaluated participant preferences for single-item-per-screen vs. multiple-items-per-screen ePRO formats, the effect on completion times, and the comparability of scores between formats. Methods: Participation in this randomized, crossover, observational study involved ePRO completion in both single-item-per-screen and multiple-items-per-screen formats on an electronic tablet device during two study visits. A paper-based preference questionnaire was completed at each visit. Results: Thirty-seven adults (mean [SD] age=49.6 [15.4] years; 51.4% female; 54.1% White) enrolled and 36 participants completed both visits. Twelve participants (33.3%) preferred the multiple-item format, 12 (33.3%) preferred the single-item format, 10 (27.8%) had no preference, and 2 (5.6%) did not notice a difference. Seventeen participants (47.2%) preferred the single-item format when participating in a clinical trial, and most (n=20; 55.6%) believed that others would prefer this format in a clinical trial. The ePRO completion time (minutes: seconds) was longer for the single-item format than the multiple-item format (mean [SD], 6:42 [2:24] vs. 6:21 [2:22]; p = 0.1540). The ePRO scores were similar across both formats. Conclusion: This study provided evidence that both single-item and multiple-items-per-screen presented on an electronic tablet device are acceptable to users and that format preference may be specific to each individual. Thus, clinical programs need to consider the targeted study population, the purpose of use, and the overall the trial design when designing ePRO solutions.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference30 articles.

1. FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource. Silver Spring (MD): Food and Drug Administration (US); Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health; 2016.

2. Ganser A, Raymond S, Pearson J. Data quality and power in clinical trials: A comparison of ePRO and paper in a randomized trial. In: Byrom B, Tiplady B, editors. ePro: Electronic Solutions for Patient-Reported Data: Gower; 2010. p. 49.

3. FDA. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims 2009. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-reported-outcome-measures-use-medical-product-development-support-labeling-claims. [accessed 13 March 2023].

4. PRO data collection in clinical trials using mixed modes: report of the ISPOR PRO mixed modes good research practices task force;Eremenco S;Value Health,2014

5. Miseta E. What Is driving the adoption of EDC applications?: Clinical Leader; 2021. https://www.clinicalleader.com/doc/what-is-driving-the-adoption-of-edc-applications-0001. [

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3