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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |