Cargando…

Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND: UK-wide national clinical guidelines promote routine 6-month post-stroke follow-up assessment. However, as part of this 6-month assessment little information is gathered from the patient’s perspective. The means of collecting this patient-centred information might be served best by a pat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smith, Alexander, Pennington, Anna, Carter, Ben, Gething, Stephanie, Price, Michelle, White, James, Dewar, Richard, Hewitt, Jonathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6030753/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29970156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2694-4
_version_ 1783337186122268672
author Smith, Alexander
Pennington, Anna
Carter, Ben
Gething, Stephanie
Price, Michelle
White, James
Dewar, Richard
Hewitt, Jonathan
author_facet Smith, Alexander
Pennington, Anna
Carter, Ben
Gething, Stephanie
Price, Michelle
White, James
Dewar, Richard
Hewitt, Jonathan
author_sort Smith, Alexander
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: UK-wide national clinical guidelines promote routine 6-month post-stroke follow-up assessment. However, as part of this 6-month assessment little information is gathered from the patient’s perspective. The means of collecting this patient-centred information might be served best by a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at the 6-month assessment time point. Currently, four different methods of 6-month follow-up assessment occur; the most common being face-to-face interview followed by telephone interview, postal questionnaire and online questionnaire. Therefore, this study will investigate if the acceptability of telephone, online or postal administration of a PROM at the 6-month post-stoke time point is not inferior to face-to-face administration. METHODS/DESIGN: A UK multicentre, blinded (analyst and researcher), pragmatic, non-inferiority study, with 80% power using a 2.5% non-inferiority margin was designed to compare the acceptability of three modes of administration (telephone interview, postal questionnaire and online questionnaire) compared with face-to-face interview administration of a PROM. We plan to approach and randomise a minimum of 808 potentially eligible participants, 202 participants per group. DISCUSSION: The aim of this ongoing research is to understand if there is a difference between face-to-face administration and the other three methods of administering a PROM as a patient-centred supplement to the 6-month review for stroke survivors. In utilising a pragmatic design, it is believed that this study will offer UK wide generalisable results, of the acceptability of the methods under investigation, to inform clinicians and commissioners of stroke services. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03177161. Registered on 6 June 2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2694-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6030753
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60307532018-07-09 Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol Smith, Alexander Pennington, Anna Carter, Ben Gething, Stephanie Price, Michelle White, James Dewar, Richard Hewitt, Jonathan Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: UK-wide national clinical guidelines promote routine 6-month post-stroke follow-up assessment. However, as part of this 6-month assessment little information is gathered from the patient’s perspective. The means of collecting this patient-centred information might be served best by a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at the 6-month assessment time point. Currently, four different methods of 6-month follow-up assessment occur; the most common being face-to-face interview followed by telephone interview, postal questionnaire and online questionnaire. Therefore, this study will investigate if the acceptability of telephone, online or postal administration of a PROM at the 6-month post-stoke time point is not inferior to face-to-face administration. METHODS/DESIGN: A UK multicentre, blinded (analyst and researcher), pragmatic, non-inferiority study, with 80% power using a 2.5% non-inferiority margin was designed to compare the acceptability of three modes of administration (telephone interview, postal questionnaire and online questionnaire) compared with face-to-face interview administration of a PROM. We plan to approach and randomise a minimum of 808 potentially eligible participants, 202 participants per group. DISCUSSION: The aim of this ongoing research is to understand if there is a difference between face-to-face administration and the other three methods of administering a PROM as a patient-centred supplement to the 6-month review for stroke survivors. In utilising a pragmatic design, it is believed that this study will offer UK wide generalisable results, of the acceptability of the methods under investigation, to inform clinicians and commissioners of stroke services. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03177161. Registered on 6 June 2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2694-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6030753/ /pubmed/29970156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2694-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Smith, Alexander
Pennington, Anna
Carter, Ben
Gething, Stephanie
Price, Michelle
White, James
Dewar, Richard
Hewitt, Jonathan
Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol
title Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol
title_full Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol
title_fullStr Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol
title_full_unstemmed Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol
title_short Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol
title_sort acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (prom) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6030753/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29970156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2694-4
work_keys_str_mv AT smithalexander acceptabilityofthemethodofadministrationofapatientreportedoutcomemeasurepromwithstrokesurvivorsarandomisedcontrolledtrialprotocol
AT penningtonanna acceptabilityofthemethodofadministrationofapatientreportedoutcomemeasurepromwithstrokesurvivorsarandomisedcontrolledtrialprotocol
AT carterben acceptabilityofthemethodofadministrationofapatientreportedoutcomemeasurepromwithstrokesurvivorsarandomisedcontrolledtrialprotocol
AT gethingstephanie acceptabilityofthemethodofadministrationofapatientreportedoutcomemeasurepromwithstrokesurvivorsarandomisedcontrolledtrialprotocol
AT pricemichelle acceptabilityofthemethodofadministrationofapatientreportedoutcomemeasurepromwithstrokesurvivorsarandomisedcontrolledtrialprotocol
AT whitejames acceptabilityofthemethodofadministrationofapatientreportedoutcomemeasurepromwithstrokesurvivorsarandomisedcontrolledtrialprotocol
AT dewarrichard acceptabilityofthemethodofadministrationofapatientreportedoutcomemeasurepromwithstrokesurvivorsarandomisedcontrolledtrialprotocol
AT hewittjonathan acceptabilityofthemethodofadministrationofapatientreportedoutcomemeasurepromwithstrokesurvivorsarandomisedcontrolledtrialprotocol