Training on the Use of Technology to Collect Patient-Reported Outcome Data Electronically in Clinical Trials: Best Practice Recommendations from the ePRO Consortium

Data collection methods for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

There are different modes and ways to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. However, there is little systematic information on how often different modes of assessment (MOA) are used in cancer clinical trials and how exactly assessments are conducted. The goal of this scoping review is to gain an understanding of the MOA and data management of PROs in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the reporting quality thereof.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant trials will be identified via their indexed publications. We will search PubMed for RCTs conducted in cancer populations that evaluate a biomedical treatment with a PRO endpoint. Trials with publications published between January 2019 and November 2023 will be included. Two independent reviewers will review the references for both the abstract and full-text screening. We will extract data from the publications from a trial and the trial protocol if a protocol can be traced. Data will be summarised at the trial level. We will focus on a descriptive analysis of the MOA of PROs and on the relative frequencies of the different MOA. We will also evaluate the quality of reporting for the relevant SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines that refer to the assessment of PROs in trials. Due to the scoping nature of our review, we will not perform a dedicated quality assessment of all trials.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The proposed review is based on secondary, published data. Hence, no ethics review is necessary. The review is part of an ongoing project on the use of electronic data capture methods in cancer clinical trials. The findings from the review will support the project and contribute to synthesising guidance to ultimately improve the (electronic) measurement of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials.

How to select and understand guidelines for patient-reported outcomes: a scoping review of existing guidance

BACKGROUND

Over the past few decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been used to understand patient health conditions better. Therefore, numerous PRO measures (questionnaires) and guidelines or guidance have been developed. However, it is challenging to select target guidance from among the many available guidance and to understand the chosen guidance. This study comprehensively collected the existing PRO guidance for clinical trials or studies and practices to support novice PRO users in academia, industry, clinical practice, and regulatory and reimbursement decision-making.

METHODS

For the scoping review, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Books, WorldCat, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Bookshelf databases from 2009 to 2023. The eligibility criteria were PRO guidance for clinical trials, clinical practice, or application such as health technology assessment. Those guidance cover aspects such as quality of life (QOL), PRO, health-related QOL, health state utilities, psychometric requirements, implementation methods, analysis and interpretation, or clinical practice applications. After the systematic search, three researchers individually reviewed the collected data, and the reviewed articles and books were scrutinized using the same criteria.

RESULTS

We collected the PRO guidance published in articles and books between 2009 and 2023. From the database searches, 1,455 articles and 387 books were identified, of which one book and 33 articles were finally selected. The collected PRO guidance was categorized into the adoption of PRO measures, design and reporting of trials or studies using PROs, implementation of PRO evaluation in clinical trials or studies or clinical practice, analysis and interpretation of PROs, and application of PRO evaluation. Based on this categorization, we suggest the following for novices: When selecting guidance, novices should clarify the "place" and "purpose" where the guidance will be used. Additionally, they should know that the terminology related to PRO and the scope and expectations of PROs vary by "places" and "purposes".

CONCLUSIONS

From this scoping review of existing PRO guidance, we provided summaries and caveats to assist novices in selecting guidance that fits their purpose and understanding it.

Narrative review of telemedicine applications in decentralized research

Telemedicine enables critical human communication and interaction between researchers and participants in decentralized research studies. There is a need to better understand the overall scope of telemedicine applications in clinical research as the basis for further research. This narrative, nonsystematic review of the literature sought to review and discuss applications of telemedicine, in the form of synchronous videoconferencing, in clinical research. We searched PubMed to identify relevant literature published between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2023. Two independent screeners assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion, followed by single-reviewer full-text screening, and we organized the literature into core themes through consensus discussion. We screened 1044 publications for inclusion. Forty-eight publications met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. We identified six core themes to serve as the structure for the narrative review: infrastructure and training, recruitment, informed consent, assessment, monitoring, and engagement. Telemedicine applications span all stages of clinical research from initial planning and recruitment to informed consent and data collection. While the evidence base for using telemedicine in clinical research is not well-developed, existing evidence suggests that telemedicine is a potentially powerful tool in clinical research.

Patient-targeted education (ePRO-E) to increase ePRO intent within an Alliance clinical trial (A221805-SI1)

BACKGROUND

The Patient Cloud ePRO app was adopted by the National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) to facilitate capturing electronic patient-reported (ePRO) outcome data, but use has been low. The study objectives were to test whether a patient-targeted ePRO educational resource (ePRO-E) would increase ePRO intent (number of users) and improve data quality (high quality: ≥80% of the required surveys submitted) within an ongoing NCTN study.

METHODS

The ePRO-E intervention, a patient-targeted educational resource (written material and 6-minute animated YouTube video), was designed to address ePRO barriers. ePRO intent and data quality were compared between 2 groups (N = 69): a historical control group and a prospectively recruited intervention group exposed to ePRO-E. Covariates included technology attitudes, age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Intervention group ePRO intent (78.8%) was statistically significantly higher than historical control group intent (47.1%) (P = .03). Patients choosing ePRO versus paper surveys had more positive and higher technology attitudes scores (P = .03). The odds of choosing ePRO were 4.7 times higher (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.2 to 17.8) (P = .02) among intervention group patients and 5.2 times higher (95% CI = 1.3 to 21.6) (P = .02) among patients with high technology attitudes scores, after controlling for covariates. However, the 80% submission rate (percentage submitting ≥80% of required surveys) in the ePRO group (30.6%) was statistically significantly lower than in the paper group (57.9%) (P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

ePRO-E exposure increased ePRO intent. High technology attitudes scores were associated with ePRO selection. Since the ePRO survey submission rate was low, additional strategies are needed to promote high-quality data submission.

Best Practices for the Electronic Implementation and Migration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

While the use of electronic methods to collect patient-reported outcome data in clinical trials continues to increase, it remains the case that many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have originally been developed and validated on paper. Careful consideration during the move from paper PROMs to electronic format is required to preserve the integrity of the measure and ensure a "faithful migration." Relevant literature has long called out the importance of following migration best practices during this process; nevertheless, such best practices are distributed across multiple documents. This article consolidates and builds upon existing electronic PROM implementation best practice recommendations to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date, single point of reference. It reflects the current consensus based on the significant advances in technology capabilities and knowledge gleaned from the growing evidence base on electronic migration and implementation, to balance the need for maintaining the integrity of the measure while optimizing respondent usability. It also specifies whether the practice is rooted in evidence or expert consensus, to enable those using these best practices to make informed and considered decisions when conducting migration.

Impact of an Electronic Medical Record-Connected Questionnaire on Efficient Nursing Documentation: Usability and Efficacy Study

BACKGROUND

Documentation tasks comprise a large percentage of nurses' workloads. Nursing records were partially based on a report from the patient. However, it is not a verbatim transcription of the patient's complaints but a type of medical record. Therefore, to reduce the time spent on nursing documentation, it is necessary to assist in the appropriate conversion or citation of patient reports to professional records. However, few studies have been conducted on systems for capturing patient reports in electronic medical records. In addition, there have been no reports on whether such a system reduces the time spent on nursing documentation.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop a patient self-reporting system that appropriately converts data to nursing records and evaluate its effect on reducing the documenting burden for nurses.

METHODS

An electronic medical record-connected questionnaire and a preadmission nursing questionnaire were administered. The questionnaire responses entered by the patients were quoted in the patient profile for inpatient assessment in the nursing system. To clarify its efficacy, this study examined whether the use of the electronic questionnaire system saved the nurses' time entering the patient profile admitted between August and December 2022. It also surveyed the usability of the electronic questionnaire between April and December 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 3111 (78%) patients reported that they answered the electronic medical questionnaire by themselves. Of them, 2715 (88%) felt it was easy to use and 2604 (85%) were willing to use it again. The electronic questionnaire was used in 1326 of 2425 admission cases (use group). The input time for the patient profile was significantly shorter in the use group than in the no-use group (P<.001). Stratified analyses showed that in the internal medicine wards and in patients with dependent activities of daily living, nurses took 13%-18% (1.3 to 2 minutes) less time to enter patient profiles within the use group (both P<.001), even though there was no difference in the amount of information. By contrast, in the surgical wards and in the patients with independent activities of daily living, there was no difference in the time to entry (P=.50 and P=.20, respectively), but there was a greater amount of information in the use group.

CONCLUSIONS

The study developed and implemented a system in which self-reported patient data were captured in the hospital information network and quoted in the nursing system. This system contributes to improving the efficiency of nurses' task recordings.

Updated Recommendations on Evidence Needed to Support Measurement Comparability Among Modes of Data Collection for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force

The ISPOR Task Force on measurement comparability between modes of data collection for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has updated the good practice recommendations from the 2009 ISPOR electronic patient-reported outcome and 2014 patient-reported outcome mixed modes Good Research Practices Task Force reports in light of accumulated evidence of measurement comparability among different modes of PROM data collection. Furthermore, with the increasing use of electronic formats of clinical outcome assessments in clinical trials and the US Food and Drug Administration's encouragement of electronic data collection, this new task force report provides stakeholders with best practice recommendations reflecting the current body of evidence and enables them to respond to future developments in research and technology. This task force recommends an evidence-based approach to determine whether new research is needed to evaluate measurement comparability for a given questionnaire or technology. The suitability of existing evidence depends upon whether it satisfactorily demonstrates that the change in data collection mode has not affected the PROM's measurement properties. In cases where sufficient evidence of measurement comparability exists and best practices for faithful migration are followed, this task force concludes that further testing of measurement comparability among the data collection modes is unnecessary, including cases of "mixing modes" within clinical trials such as bring your own device designs.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Collection at an Urban HIV Clinic Associated With a Historically Black Medical College in the Southern United States: Qualitative Interview Study Among Patients With HIV

BACKGROUND

Black Americans, particularly in the southern United States, are disproportionately affected by the US HIV epidemic. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection can improve patient outcomes and provide oft-overlooked data on mental health, substance use, and patient adherence to antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVE

We piloted the use of an electronic tablet to collect PRO data on social and behavioral determinants of health among people with HIV at the Meharry Community Wellness Center, an HIV clinic affiliated with a Historically Black Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee. Our primary objective was to better understand patients' experiences and comfort with using an electronic PRO tool through patient interviews.

METHODS

We enrolled 100 people with HIV in care at the Meharry Community Wellness Center consecutively to completely validate PRO tools using the Research Electronic Data Capture platform on a hand-held tablet. Using a purposive sampling strategy, we enrolled 20 of the 100 participants in an in-depth interview (IDI). Interview guide development was grounded in the cognitive-behavioral model, in which thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are interrelated. IDIs were audio recorded, transcribed, deidentified, and formatted for coding. A hierarchical coding system was developed and refined using an inductive-deductive approach.

RESULTS

Among the 100 people with HIV enrolled, the median age was 50 (IQR 42-54) years; 89% (n=89) were Black, 60% (n=60) were male, and 82% (n=82) were living below 100% of the federal poverty level in 2016. Five major interview themes emerged: overall experience, question content, sensitive topics, clinic visit impact, and future recommendations. IDI participants felt that the tablet was easy to use and that the question content was meaningful. Question content related to trauma, sexual and drug use behaviors, mental health, stigma, and discrimination elicited uncomfortable or distressing feelings in some participants. Patients expressed a strong desire to be truthful, and most would complete these surveys without compensation at future visits if offered.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an electronic tablet to complete PRO data collection was well received by this cohort of vulnerable persons in HIV care in the southern United States. Despite some discomfort related to question content, our cohort overwhelmingly believed this was a meaningful part of their medical experience and expressed a high desire for truthfulness. Future research will focus on scaling up the implementation and evaluation of PRO data collection in a contextually appropriate manner while obtaining input from providers and staff to ensure that the collected data are both applicable and actionable.

Developing a Mobile Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Administration System to Capture Postradiation Toxicity in Oncology: Usability and Feasibility Study

Background

Accurate self-reported symptomatic toxicity documentation via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is essential throughout cancer treatment to ensure safety and understand therapeutic efficacy. However, the capture of accurate toxicities from patients undergoing radiation therapy is challenging because this is generally provided only at the time of scheduled visits.

Objective

This study seeks to establish the usability and feasibility of a mobile PRO-CTCAE Administration System (mPROS) to capture toxicities related to radiation therapy.

Methods

English-speaking adult patients who were undergoing radiation therapy for cancer were enrolled and given a brief demonstration of the Say All Your Symptoms (SAYS) and Symptom Tracking Entry Program (STEP) interfaces of the mPROS app, followed by a patient-use phase where patient actions were observed as they navigated mPROS to enter toxicities. Patient feedback was captured via a semistructured interview and brief questionnaire.

Results

We enrolled 25 patients (age: mean 60.7 years; females: n=13, 52%; White patients: n=13; 52%; non-Hispanic patients: n=19, 76%; college graduates: n=17, 68%). Patients almost equally preferred the SAYS (n=14, 56%) or STEP (n=11, 44%) interfaces, with 21 patients (84%) agreeing that they would use mPROS to report their symptoms to their health care team and 19 patients (76%) agreeing that they would recommend mPROS to others.

Conclusions

The mPROS app is usable and feasible for facilitating the patient reporting of radiation therapy–related symptomatic toxicities. A revised version of mPROS that incorporates patient input and includes electronic health record integration is being developed and validated as part of a multicenter trial.

Developing an e-learning course on the use of PRO measures in oncological practice: health care professionals' preferences for learning content and methods

Purpose

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical routine requires knowledge and competences regarding their use. In order to facilitate implementation, an e-learning course for health care professionals (HCPs) on the utilisation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PROMs in oncological clinical practice is being developed. This study aimed to explore future users’ educational needs regarding content and learning methods.

Methods

The sequential mixed methods approach was applied. A scoping literature review informed the guideline for qualitative interviews with HCPs with diverse professional backgrounds in oncology and cancer advocates recruited using a purposive sampling strategy. An international online survey was conducted to validate the qualitative findings.

Results

Between December 2019 and May 2020, 73 interviews were conducted in 9 countries resulting in 8 topic areas (Basic information on PROs in clinical routine, Benefits of PRO assessments in clinical practice, Implementation of PRO assessments in clinical routine, Setup of PRO assessments for clinical application, Interpretation of PRO data, Integration of PROs into the communication with patients, Use of PROs in clinical practice, Self-management recommendations for patients based on PROs) subsequently presented in the online survey. The online survey (open between 3 June and 19 July 2020) was completed by 233 HCPs from 33 countries. The highest preference was indicated for content on interpretation of PRO data (97%), clinical benefits of assessing PRO data (95.3%) and implementation of routine PRO data assessment (94.8%). Regarding learning methods, participants indicated a high preference for practical examples that use a mixed approach of presentation (written, audio, video and interactive).

Conclusion

Educational needs for an integration of PROs in communication in clinical care and coherent implementation strategies became evident. These results inform the development of an e-learning course to support HCPs in the clinical use of EORTC PRO measures.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06676-x.

Perspectives on emerging technologies, personalised medicine, and clinical research for cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean

Challenges of health systems in Latin America and the Caribbean include accessibility, inequity, segmentation, and poverty. These challenges are similar in different countries of the region and transcend national borders. The increasing digital transformation of health care holds promise of more precise interventions, improved health outcomes, increased efficiency, and ultimately reduced health-care costs. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the adoption of digital health tools is in early stages and the quality of cancer registries, electronic health records, and structured databases are problematic. Cancer research and innovation in the region are limited due to inadequate academic resources and translational research is almost fully dependent on public funding. Regulatory complexity and extended timelines jeopardise the potential improvement in participation in international studies. Emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, big data, and cancer research represent an opportunity to address the health-care challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean collectively, by optimising national capacities, sharing and comparing best practices, and transferring scientific and technical capabilities.

Use of Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Patient-reported Experience Measures within Evaluation Studies of Telemedicine Applications: Systematic Review

Background

With the rise of digital health technologies and telemedicine, the need for evidence-based evaluation is growing. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are recommended as an essential part of the evaluation of telemedicine. For the first time, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the use of PROMs and PREMs in the evaluation studies of telemedicine covering all application types and medical purposes.

Objective

This study investigates the following research questions: in which scenarios are PROMs and PREMs collected for evaluation purposes, which PROM and PREM outcome domains have been covered and how often, which outcome measurement instruments have been used and how often, does the selection and quantity of PROMs and PREMs differ between study types and application types, and has the use of PROMs and PREMs changed over time.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases and included studies published from inception until April 2, 2020. We included studies evaluating telemedicine with patients as the main users; these studies reported PROMs and PREMs within randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, noncontrolled trials, and feasibility trials in English and German.

Results

Of the identified 2671 studies, 303 (11.34%) were included; of the 303 studies, 67 (22.1%) were feasibility studies, 70 (23.1%) were noncontrolled trials, 20 (6.6%) were controlled trials, and 146 (48.2%) were randomized controlled trials. Health-related quality of life (n=310; mean 1.02, SD 1.05), emotional function (n=244; mean 0.81, SD 1.18), and adherence (n=103; mean 0.34, SD 0.53) were the most frequently assessed outcome domains. Self-developed PROMs were used in 21.4% (65/303) of the studies, and self-developed PREMs were used in 22.3% (68/303). PROMs (n=884) were assessed more frequently than PREMs (n=234). As the evidence level of the studies increased, the number of PROMs also increased (τ=−0.45), and the number of PREMs decreased (τ=0.35). Since 2000, not only has the number of studies using PROMs and PREMs increased, but the level of evidence and the number of outcome measurement instruments used have also increased, with the number of PREMs permanently remaining at a lower level.

Conclusions

There have been increasingly more studies, particularly high-evidence studies, which use PROMs and PREMs to evaluate telemedicine. PROMs have been used more frequently than PREMs. With the increasing maturity stage of telemedicine applications and higher evidence level, the use of PROMs increased in line with the recommendations of evaluation guidelines. Health-related quality of life and emotional function were measured in almost all the studies. Simultaneously, health literacy as a precondition for using the application adequately, alongside proper training and guidance, has rarely been reported. Further efforts should be pursued to standardize PROM and PREM collection in evaluation studies of telemedicine.