Cargando…

The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training

AIMS: To explore cancer trial coordinators' roles and challenges in administering patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, and establish what PRO-specific training and guidance they received and needed. METHODS: Eligible cancer trial coordinators experienced with PRO assessment from appro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca, Calvert, Melanie, Kyte, Derek, Stockler, Martin, King, Madeleine T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5898562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29696221
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2017.11.009
_version_ 1783314147936567296
author Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
Calvert, Melanie
Kyte, Derek
Stockler, Martin
King, Madeleine T.
author_facet Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
Calvert, Melanie
Kyte, Derek
Stockler, Martin
King, Madeleine T.
author_sort Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
collection PubMed
description AIMS: To explore cancer trial coordinators' roles and challenges in administering patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, and establish what PRO-specific training and guidance they received and needed. METHODS: Eligible cancer trial coordinators experienced with PRO assessment from approved Australian sites participated in an audio-recorded, semi-structured interview (transcribed verbatim). Recruitment continued until data saturation. Transcripts underwent content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty coordinators participated (professional training: nursing (n = 12), science/research (n = 4), both (n = 4)). PRO administration formed a minor component of most (85%) coordinators' roles. PRO administration challenges included managing ‘English second language’ participants, participants' companions who attempted to complete questionnaires, burdensome questionnaires, and balancing their duty of care against trial requirements. Coordinators reported inconsistencies in PRO administration, which appeared to arise as a result of confusion and inconsistent or contradictory PRO training. Inconsistencies concerned whether/when they explained the purpose of PRO assessment, which participants they approached to complete PROs, and whether they used PRO trial data to inform care. Coordinators received PRO training from various sources; most commonly study-specific start-up meetings (45%) or from colleagues (30%). Two received no PRO-specific training. Despite the challenges reported, many (55%) felt they did not need further PRO training. CONCLUSION: Trial coordinators receive inconsistent PRO-specific training and are often unclear how to prioritise different aspects of data quality when faced with everyday challenges, leading to inconsistent methods, missing data, poor quality data, and even bias. Agreement on how coordinators should prioritise the requirements of PRO studies is a necessary pre-requisite for the development of much-needed, consensus-based PRO administration guidelines.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5898562
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58985622018-04-25 The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca Calvert, Melanie Kyte, Derek Stockler, Martin King, Madeleine T. Contemp Clin Trials Commun Article AIMS: To explore cancer trial coordinators' roles and challenges in administering patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, and establish what PRO-specific training and guidance they received and needed. METHODS: Eligible cancer trial coordinators experienced with PRO assessment from approved Australian sites participated in an audio-recorded, semi-structured interview (transcribed verbatim). Recruitment continued until data saturation. Transcripts underwent content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty coordinators participated (professional training: nursing (n = 12), science/research (n = 4), both (n = 4)). PRO administration formed a minor component of most (85%) coordinators' roles. PRO administration challenges included managing ‘English second language’ participants, participants' companions who attempted to complete questionnaires, burdensome questionnaires, and balancing their duty of care against trial requirements. Coordinators reported inconsistencies in PRO administration, which appeared to arise as a result of confusion and inconsistent or contradictory PRO training. Inconsistencies concerned whether/when they explained the purpose of PRO assessment, which participants they approached to complete PROs, and whether they used PRO trial data to inform care. Coordinators received PRO training from various sources; most commonly study-specific start-up meetings (45%) or from colleagues (30%). Two received no PRO-specific training. Despite the challenges reported, many (55%) felt they did not need further PRO training. CONCLUSION: Trial coordinators receive inconsistent PRO-specific training and are often unclear how to prioritise different aspects of data quality when faced with everyday challenges, leading to inconsistent methods, missing data, poor quality data, and even bias. Agreement on how coordinators should prioritise the requirements of PRO studies is a necessary pre-requisite for the development of much-needed, consensus-based PRO administration guidelines. Elsevier 2017-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5898562/ /pubmed/29696221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2017.11.009 Text en © 2017 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
Calvert, Melanie
Kyte, Derek
Stockler, Martin
King, Madeleine T.
The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training
title The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training
title_full The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training
title_fullStr The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training
title_full_unstemmed The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training
title_short The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training
title_sort administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5898562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29696221
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2017.11.009
work_keys_str_mv AT merciecabebberrebecca theadministrationofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairesincancertrialsinterviewswithtrialcoordinatorsregardingtheirrolesexperienceschallengesandtraining
AT calvertmelanie theadministrationofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairesincancertrialsinterviewswithtrialcoordinatorsregardingtheirrolesexperienceschallengesandtraining
AT kytederek theadministrationofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairesincancertrialsinterviewswithtrialcoordinatorsregardingtheirrolesexperienceschallengesandtraining
AT stocklermartin theadministrationofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairesincancertrialsinterviewswithtrialcoordinatorsregardingtheirrolesexperienceschallengesandtraining
AT kingmadeleinet theadministrationofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairesincancertrialsinterviewswithtrialcoordinatorsregardingtheirrolesexperienceschallengesandtraining
AT merciecabebberrebecca administrationofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairesincancertrialsinterviewswithtrialcoordinatorsregardingtheirrolesexperienceschallengesandtraining
AT calvertmelanie administrationofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairesincancertrialsinterviewswithtrialcoordinatorsregardingtheirrolesexperienceschallengesandtraining
AT kytederek administrationofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairesincancertrialsinterviewswithtrialcoordinatorsregardingtheirrolesexperienceschallengesandtraining
AT stocklermartin administrationofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairesincancertrialsinterviewswithtrialcoordinatorsregardingtheirrolesexperienceschallengesandtraining
AT kingmadeleinet administrationofpatientreportedoutcomequestionnairesincancertrialsinterviewswithtrialcoordinatorsregardingtheirrolesexperienceschallengesandtraining