Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Flexible approaches to eCOA administration in clinical trials: The site perspective.

The Critical Path Institute convened the Support Flexible Approaches to PRO Data Collection project as part of the eCOA: Getting Better Together Initiative which was instigated to identify and address common challenges and drive positive change with eCOA implementation in clinical trials. The project aimed to identify clinical trial stakeholders' concerns related to electronic PRO (ePRO) implementation and propose areas of improvement via simplification and flexibility. One workstream focused on patient-/site-centric approaches for simplification and surveyed representatives of clinical sites and site monitors for their perspectives. A semi-structured questionnaire was developed and distributed via snowball sampling to site professionals and clinical research associates (CRAs) that had ePRO experience who had been identified via representative groups or sponsor-led site networks. Responses were received from various site roles across a range of global regions; the largest contribution was from the United States. Topics raised included helpdesk capabilities, technical concerns, device types, and user interfaces among others and are discussed further in this paper. The feedback derived from the questionnaire provided the basis for concrete ideas that sponsors should consider incorporating into protocol design for participant visits, technology use, devices, and methods of back-up data collection.

Best Practices for the Electronic Implementation and Migration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

While the use of electronic methods to collect patient-reported outcome data in clinical trials continues to increase, it remains the case that many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have originally been developed and validated on paper. Careful consideration during the move from paper PROMs to electronic format is required to preserve the integrity of the measure and ensure a "faithful migration." Relevant literature has long called out the importance of following migration best practices during this process; nevertheless, such best practices are distributed across multiple documents. This article consolidates and builds upon existing electronic PROM implementation best practice recommendations to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date, single point of reference. It reflects the current consensus based on the significant advances in technology capabilities and knowledge gleaned from the growing evidence base on electronic migration and implementation, to balance the need for maintaining the integrity of the measure while optimizing respondent usability. It also specifies whether the practice is rooted in evidence or expert consensus, to enable those using these best practices to make informed and considered decisions when conducting migration.

Best Practice Recommendations for Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Dataset Structure and Standardization to Support Drug Development.

The electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) Dataset Structure and Standardization Project is a multistakeholder initiative formed by Critical Path Institute's PRO Consortium and Electronic Clinical Outcome Assessment (eCOA) Consortium to address issues related to ePRO dataset structure and standardization and to provide best practice recommendations for clinical trial sponsors and eCOA providers. Given the many benefits of utilizing electronic modes to capture PRO data, clinical trials are increasingly using these methods, yet there are challenges to using data generated by eCOA systems. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) standards are used in clinical trials to ensure consistency in data collection, tabulation, and analysis and to facilitate regulatory submission. Currently, ePRO data are not required to follow a standard model, and the data models used often vary by eCOA provider and sponsor. This lack of consistency creates risks for programming and analysis and difficulties for analytics functions generating the required analysis and submission datasets. There is a disconnect between data standards used for study data submission and those used for data collection via case report forms and ePRO forms, which would be mitigated through the application of CDISC standards for ePRO data capture and transfer. The project was formed to collate and examine the issues arising from the lack of adoption of standardized approaches and this paper details recommendations to address those issues. Recommendations to address issues with ePRO dataset structure and standardization include adopting CDISC standards in the ePRO data platform, timely involvement of key stakeholders, ensuring ePRO controls are implemented, addressing issues of missing data early in development, ensuring quality control and validation of ePRO datasets, and use of read-only datasets.

Validation of electronic systems to collect patient-reported outcome (PRO) data-recommendations for clinical trial teams: report of the ISPOR ePRO systems validation good research practices task force.

Outcomes research literature has many examples of high-quality, reliable patient-reported outcome (PRO) data entered directly by electronic means, ePRO, compared to data entered from original results on paper. Clinical trial managers are increasingly using ePRO data collection for PRO-based end points. Regulatory review dictates the rules to follow with ePRO data collection for medical label claims. A critical component for regulatory compliance is evidence of the validation of these electronic data collection systems. Validation of electronic systems is a process versus a focused activity that finishes at a single point in time. Eight steps need to be described and undertaken to qualify the validation of the data collection software in its target environment: requirements definition, design, coding, testing, tracing, user acceptance testing, installation and configuration, and decommissioning. These elements are consistent with recent regulatory guidance for systems validation. This report was written to explain how the validation process works for sponsors, trial teams, and other users of electronic data collection devices responsible for verifying the quality of the data entered into relational databases from such devices. It is a guide on the requirements and documentation needed from a data collection systems provider to demonstrate systems validation. It is a practical source of information for study teams to ensure that ePRO providers are using system validation and implementation processes that will ensure the systems and services: operate reliably when in practical use; produce accurate and complete data and data files; support management control and comply with any existing regulations. Furthermore, this short report will increase user understanding of the requirements for a technology review leading to more informed and balanced recommendations or decisions on electronic data collection methods.