Cargando…
Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study
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 coll...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37734892 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073817 |
_version_ | 1785108763972206592 |
---|---|
author | Philipps, Lara Foster, Stephanie Gardiner, Deborah Gath, Jacqui Gillman, Alexa Haviland, Joanne Hill, Elizabeth King, Diana Manning, Georgina Stiles, Morgaine Hall, Emma Lewis, Rebecca |
author_facet | Philipps, Lara Foster, Stephanie Gardiner, Deborah Gath, Jacqui Gillman, Alexa Haviland, Joanne Hill, Elizabeth King, Diana Manning, Georgina Stiles, Morgaine Hall, Emma Lewis, Rebecca |
author_sort | Philipps, Lara |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10514621 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105146212023-09-23 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 Foster, Stephanie Gardiner, Deborah Gath, Jacqui Gillman, Alexa Haviland, Joanne Hill, Elizabeth King, Diana Manning, Georgina Stiles, Morgaine Hall, Emma Lewis, Rebecca BMJ Open Research Methods 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10514621/ /pubmed/37734892 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073817 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Methods Philipps, Lara Foster, Stephanie Gardiner, Deborah Gath, Jacqui Gillman, Alexa Haviland, Joanne Hill, Elizabeth King, Diana Manning, Georgina Stiles, Morgaine Hall, Emma Lewis, Rebecca Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study |
title | Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study |
title_full | Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study |
title_fullStr | Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study |
title_full_unstemmed | Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study |
title_short | Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study |
title_sort | study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based patient-reported outcomes collection (spruce): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study |
topic | Research Methods |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37734892 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073817 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT philippslara studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy AT fosterstephanie studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy AT gardinerdeborah studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy AT gathjacqui studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy AT gillmanalexa studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy AT havilandjoanne studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy AT hillelizabeth studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy AT kingdiana studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy AT manninggeorgina studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy AT stilesmorgaine studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy AT hallemma studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy AT lewisrebecca studywithinatrialofelectronicversuspaperbasedpatientreportedoutcomescollectionsprucestudyprotocolforapartiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencestudy |