Cargando…

Evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study qualitative protocol

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly included within cancer clinical trials. If appropriately collected, analysed and transparently reported, these data might provide invaluable evidence to inform patient care. However, there is mounting indication that the design and repo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Retzer, Ameeta, Keeley, Thomas, Ahmed, Khaled, Armes, Jo, Brown, Julia M, Calman, Lynn, Copland, Chris, Efficace, Fabio, Gavin, Anna, Glaser, Adam, Greenfield, Diana M, Lanceley, Anne, Taylor, Rachel M, Velikova, Galina, Brundage, Michael, Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca, King, Madeleine T, Calvert, Melanie, Kyte, Derek
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29431123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017282
_version_ 1783302873579257856
author Retzer, Ameeta
Keeley, Thomas
Ahmed, Khaled
Armes, Jo
Brown, Julia M
Calman, Lynn
Copland, Chris
Efficace, Fabio
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam
Greenfield, Diana M
Lanceley, Anne
Taylor, Rachel M
Velikova, Galina
Brundage, Michael
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
King, Madeleine T
Calvert, Melanie
Kyte, Derek
author_facet Retzer, Ameeta
Keeley, Thomas
Ahmed, Khaled
Armes, Jo
Brown, Julia M
Calman, Lynn
Copland, Chris
Efficace, Fabio
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam
Greenfield, Diana M
Lanceley, Anne
Taylor, Rachel M
Velikova, Galina
Brundage, Michael
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
King, Madeleine T
Calvert, Melanie
Kyte, Derek
author_sort Retzer, Ameeta
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly included within cancer clinical trials. If appropriately collected, analysed and transparently reported, these data might provide invaluable evidence to inform patient care. However, there is mounting indication that the design and reporting of PRO data in cancer trials may be suboptimal. This programme of research will establish via three interlinked studies whether these findings are applicable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how to best enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported in clinical trials. This study will explore with key stakeholders factors that influence optimal PRO protocol content, implementation and reporting and make recommendations for training and guidance. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Semistructured interviews will be conducted with members of key stakeholder groups. The purposive sample of up to 48 participants will include: (1) trial chief investigators, trial management group members, statisticians and research nurses of cancer trials including primary or secondary PRO recruited via the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Clinical Studies Group and Consumer Liaison Group and the UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered UK Clinical Trial Unit Network; (2) NCRI Consumer Liaison Group members; (3) international experts in PRO oncology trial design; and (4) journal editors and funding bodies. Data will be analysed using directed thematic analysis employing a coding frame and modified as analysis progresses. Formal triangulation of coding and member checking will be employed to enhance credibility. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Birmingham Ethics Committee (Ref: ERN_17–0085). Findings will be disseminated via conference presentations, peer-reviewed journals, patient groups and social media (@CPROR_UoB; http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpror). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016036533.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5829743
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58297432018-03-01 Evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study qualitative protocol Retzer, Ameeta Keeley, Thomas Ahmed, Khaled Armes, Jo Brown, Julia M Calman, Lynn Copland, Chris Efficace, Fabio Gavin, Anna Glaser, Adam Greenfield, Diana M Lanceley, Anne Taylor, Rachel M Velikova, Galina Brundage, Michael Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca King, Madeleine T Calvert, Melanie Kyte, Derek BMJ Open Oncology INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly included within cancer clinical trials. If appropriately collected, analysed and transparently reported, these data might provide invaluable evidence to inform patient care. However, there is mounting indication that the design and reporting of PRO data in cancer trials may be suboptimal. This programme of research will establish via three interlinked studies whether these findings are applicable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how to best enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported in clinical trials. This study will explore with key stakeholders factors that influence optimal PRO protocol content, implementation and reporting and make recommendations for training and guidance. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Semistructured interviews will be conducted with members of key stakeholder groups. The purposive sample of up to 48 participants will include: (1) trial chief investigators, trial management group members, statisticians and research nurses of cancer trials including primary or secondary PRO recruited via the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Clinical Studies Group and Consumer Liaison Group and the UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered UK Clinical Trial Unit Network; (2) NCRI Consumer Liaison Group members; (3) international experts in PRO oncology trial design; and (4) journal editors and funding bodies. Data will be analysed using directed thematic analysis employing a coding frame and modified as analysis progresses. Formal triangulation of coding and member checking will be employed to enhance credibility. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Birmingham Ethics Committee (Ref: ERN_17–0085). Findings will be disseminated via conference presentations, peer-reviewed journals, patient groups and social media (@CPROR_UoB; http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpror). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016036533. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5829743/ /pubmed/29431123 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017282 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. 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 and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Oncology
Retzer, Ameeta
Keeley, Thomas
Ahmed, Khaled
Armes, Jo
Brown, Julia M
Calman, Lynn
Copland, Chris
Efficace, Fabio
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam
Greenfield, Diana M
Lanceley, Anne
Taylor, Rachel M
Velikova, Galina
Brundage, Michael
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
King, Madeleine T
Calvert, Melanie
Kyte, Derek
Evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study qualitative protocol
title Evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study qualitative protocol
title_full Evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study qualitative protocol
title_fullStr Evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study qualitative protocol
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study qualitative protocol
title_short Evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study qualitative protocol
title_sort evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in uk cancer clinical trials: the epic study qualitative protocol
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29431123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017282
work_keys_str_mv AT retzerameeta evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT keeleythomas evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT ahmedkhaled evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT armesjo evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT brownjuliam evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT calmanlynn evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT coplandchris evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT efficacefabio evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT gavinanna evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT glaseradam evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT greenfielddianam evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT lanceleyanne evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT taylorrachelm evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT velikovagalina evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT brundagemichael evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT merciecabebberrebecca evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT kingmadeleinet evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT calvertmelanie evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol
AT kytederek evaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyqualitativeprotocol