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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Philipps, Lara, Foster, Stephanie, Gardiner, Deborah, Gath, Jacqui, Gillman, Alexa, Haviland, Joanne, Hill, Elizabeth, King, Diana, Manning, Georgina, Stiles, Morgaine, Hall, Emma, Lewis, Rebecca
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