Cargando…
Introducing the participant-generated experience and satisfaction (PaGES) index: a novel, longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation tool
BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Outcomes or Experience Measures (PROMS / PREMS) are routinely used in clinical studies to assess participants’ views and experiences of trial interventions and related quality of life. Purely quantitative approaches lack the necessary detail and flexibility to understand...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10537543/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37759174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02016-1 |
_version_ | 1785113127771176960 |
---|---|
author | Symon, Andrew Lightly, Kate Howard, Rachel Mundle, Shuchita Faragher, Brian Hanley, Molly Durocher, Jill Winikoff, Beverly Weeks, Andrew |
author_facet | Symon, Andrew Lightly, Kate Howard, Rachel Mundle, Shuchita Faragher, Brian Hanley, Molly Durocher, Jill Winikoff, Beverly Weeks, Andrew |
author_sort | Symon, Andrew |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Outcomes or Experience Measures (PROMS / PREMS) are routinely used in clinical studies to assess participants’ views and experiences of trial interventions and related quality of life. Purely quantitative approaches lack the necessary detail and flexibility to understand the real-world impact of study interventions on participants, according to their own priorities. Conversely, purely qualitative assessments are time consuming and usually restricted to a small, possibly unrepresentative, sub-sample. This paper, which reports a pilot study within a randomised controlled trial of induction of labour, reports the feasibility, and acceptability of the Participant-Generated Experience and Satisfaction (PaGES) Index, a new mixed qualitative / quantitative PREM tool. METHODS: The single-sheet PaGES Index was completed by hypertensive pregnant women in two hospitals in Nagpur, India before and after taking part in the ‘Misoprostol or Oxytocin for Labour Induction’ (MOLI) randomised controlled trial. Participants recorded aspects of the impending birth they considered most important, and then ranked them. After the birth, participants completed the PaGES Index again, this time also scoring their satisfaction with each item. Forms were completed on paper in the local language or in English, supported by Research Assistants. Following translation (when needed), responses were uploaded to a REDCap database, coded in Excel and analysed thematically. A formal qualitative evaluation (qMOLI) was also conducted to obtain stakeholder perspectives of the PaGES Index and the wider trial. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants, and focus groups with researchers and clinicians. Data were managed using NVivo 12 software and analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Participants and researchers found the PaGES Index easy to complete and administer; mothers valued the opportunity to speak about their experience. Qualitative analysis of the initial 68 PaGES Index responses identified areas of commonality and difference among participants and also when comparing antenatal and postnatal responses. Theme citations and associated comments scores were fairly stable before and after the birth. The qMOLI phase, comprising 53 one-to-one interviews with participants and eight focus groups involving 83 researchers and clinicians, provided support that the PaGES Index was an acceptable and even helpful means of capturing participant perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective participant experiences are an important aspect of clinical trials. The PaGES Index was found to be a feasible and acceptable measure that unites qualitative research’s explanatory power with the comparative power of quantitative designs. It also offers the opportunity to conduct a before-and-after evaluation, allowing researchers to examine the expectations and actual experiences of all clinical trial participants, not just a small sub-sample. This study also shows that, with appropriate research assistant input, the PaGES Index can be used in different languages by participants with varying literacy levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov (21/11/2018) (NCT03749902). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-02016-1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10537543 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105375432023-09-29 Introducing the participant-generated experience and satisfaction (PaGES) index: a novel, longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation tool Symon, Andrew Lightly, Kate Howard, Rachel Mundle, Shuchita Faragher, Brian Hanley, Molly Durocher, Jill Winikoff, Beverly Weeks, Andrew BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Outcomes or Experience Measures (PROMS / PREMS) are routinely used in clinical studies to assess participants’ views and experiences of trial interventions and related quality of life. Purely quantitative approaches lack the necessary detail and flexibility to understand the real-world impact of study interventions on participants, according to their own priorities. Conversely, purely qualitative assessments are time consuming and usually restricted to a small, possibly unrepresentative, sub-sample. This paper, which reports a pilot study within a randomised controlled trial of induction of labour, reports the feasibility, and acceptability of the Participant-Generated Experience and Satisfaction (PaGES) Index, a new mixed qualitative / quantitative PREM tool. METHODS: The single-sheet PaGES Index was completed by hypertensive pregnant women in two hospitals in Nagpur, India before and after taking part in the ‘Misoprostol or Oxytocin for Labour Induction’ (MOLI) randomised controlled trial. Participants recorded aspects of the impending birth they considered most important, and then ranked them. After the birth, participants completed the PaGES Index again, this time also scoring their satisfaction with each item. Forms were completed on paper in the local language or in English, supported by Research Assistants. Following translation (when needed), responses were uploaded to a REDCap database, coded in Excel and analysed thematically. A formal qualitative evaluation (qMOLI) was also conducted to obtain stakeholder perspectives of the PaGES Index and the wider trial. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants, and focus groups with researchers and clinicians. Data were managed using NVivo 12 software and analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Participants and researchers found the PaGES Index easy to complete and administer; mothers valued the opportunity to speak about their experience. Qualitative analysis of the initial 68 PaGES Index responses identified areas of commonality and difference among participants and also when comparing antenatal and postnatal responses. Theme citations and associated comments scores were fairly stable before and after the birth. The qMOLI phase, comprising 53 one-to-one interviews with participants and eight focus groups involving 83 researchers and clinicians, provided support that the PaGES Index was an acceptable and even helpful means of capturing participant perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective participant experiences are an important aspect of clinical trials. The PaGES Index was found to be a feasible and acceptable measure that unites qualitative research’s explanatory power with the comparative power of quantitative designs. It also offers the opportunity to conduct a before-and-after evaluation, allowing researchers to examine the expectations and actual experiences of all clinical trial participants, not just a small sub-sample. This study also shows that, with appropriate research assistant input, the PaGES Index can be used in different languages by participants with varying literacy levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov (21/11/2018) (NCT03749902). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-02016-1. BioMed Central 2023-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10537543/ /pubmed/37759174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02016-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Symon, Andrew Lightly, Kate Howard, Rachel Mundle, Shuchita Faragher, Brian Hanley, Molly Durocher, Jill Winikoff, Beverly Weeks, Andrew Introducing the participant-generated experience and satisfaction (PaGES) index: a novel, longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation tool |
title | Introducing the participant-generated experience and satisfaction (PaGES) index: a novel, longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation tool |
title_full | Introducing the participant-generated experience and satisfaction (PaGES) index: a novel, longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation tool |
title_fullStr | Introducing the participant-generated experience and satisfaction (PaGES) index: a novel, longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation tool |
title_full_unstemmed | Introducing the participant-generated experience and satisfaction (PaGES) index: a novel, longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation tool |
title_short | Introducing the participant-generated experience and satisfaction (PaGES) index: a novel, longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation tool |
title_sort | introducing the participant-generated experience and satisfaction (pages) index: a novel, longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation tool |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10537543/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37759174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02016-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT symonandrew introducingtheparticipantgeneratedexperienceandsatisfactionpagesindexanovellongitudinalmixedmethodsevaluationtool AT lightlykate introducingtheparticipantgeneratedexperienceandsatisfactionpagesindexanovellongitudinalmixedmethodsevaluationtool AT howardrachel introducingtheparticipantgeneratedexperienceandsatisfactionpagesindexanovellongitudinalmixedmethodsevaluationtool AT mundleshuchita introducingtheparticipantgeneratedexperienceandsatisfactionpagesindexanovellongitudinalmixedmethodsevaluationtool AT faragherbrian introducingtheparticipantgeneratedexperienceandsatisfactionpagesindexanovellongitudinalmixedmethodsevaluationtool AT hanleymolly introducingtheparticipantgeneratedexperienceandsatisfactionpagesindexanovellongitudinalmixedmethodsevaluationtool AT durocherjill introducingtheparticipantgeneratedexperienceandsatisfactionpagesindexanovellongitudinalmixedmethodsevaluationtool AT winikoffbeverly introducingtheparticipantgeneratedexperienceandsatisfactionpagesindexanovellongitudinalmixedmethodsevaluationtool AT weeksandrew introducingtheparticipantgeneratedexperienceandsatisfactionpagesindexanovellongitudinalmixedmethodsevaluationtool |