Measurement Comparability of Electronic and Paper Administration of Visual Analogue Scales: A Review of Published Studies.

BACKGROUND: Visual analogue scales (VASs) are used in a variety of patient-, observer- and clinician-reported outcome measures. While typically included in measures originally developed for pen-and-paper completion, a greater number of clinical trials currently use electronic approaches to their collection. This leads researchers to question whether the measurement properties of the scale have been conserved during the migration to an electronic format, particularly because electronic formats often use a different scale length than the 100 mm paper standard. METHODS: We performed a review of published studies investigating the measurement comparability of paper and electronic formats of the VAS. RESULTS: Our literature search yielded 26 studies published between 1997 and 2018 that reported comparison of paper and electronic formats using the VAS. After excluding 2 publications, 23 of the remaining 24 studies included in this review reported electronic formats of the VAS (eVAS) and paper formats (pVAS) to be equivalent. A further study concluded that eVAS and pVAS were both acceptable but should not be interchanged. eVAS length varied from 21 to 200 mm, indicating that 100 mm length is not a requirement. CONCLUSIONS: The literature supports the hypothesis that eVAS and pVAS provide comparable results regardless of the VAS length. When implementing a VAS on a screen-based electronic mode, we recommend following industry best practices for faithful migration to minimise the likelihood of non-comparability with pVAS.

Training on the Use of Technology to Collect Patient-Reported Outcome Data Electronically in Clinical Trials: Best Practice Recommendations from the ePRO Consortium.

Electronic capture of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data has many advantages over paper-based data collection. Regulatory agencies have consistently supported the use of electronic PRO (ePRO) data capture and recommended participant and site staff training on the correct use of electronic data capture systems. The objective of this paper is to outline best practice recommendations for training end users, including site staff and study participants, on the use of ePRO technology in clinical trials to enable consistent, accurate, and complete data collection. Site personnel should be trained on study-specific as well as technology-specific topics and be given instructions on whom to contact to obtain technical support. Optimal training takes place over time using multiple modalities, including hands-on, face-to-face training at an investigator meeting or directly in the clinical site; remote training via webinar or teleconference; interactive on-demand self-paced-training via e-learning modalities; and supplemented by proxy training performed by study clinical research associates. Like site personnel training, study participants should be provided with individual, hands-on training by site staff at the initiation of the trial and in conjunction with interactive electronic training modules that can be accessed on-demand throughout the duration of the trial. The recommendations put forth in this paper provide a structured framework for the training that site personnel and study participants need to optimize the advantages trials can gain from using ePRO data collection systems.

Perceived Burden of Completion of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials:: Results of a Preliminary Study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the perceived burden of clinical trial participation is an important element of patient-centric trial design and conduct. METHODS: We report the results of a study to gain preliminary insights into the perceived burden associated with patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection among a sample (n = 61) of volunteers from the general population including people with various health conditions resulting in chronic pain. RESULTS: Participants identified morning completion as more burdensome than completion of PRO measures in the evening. Weekly completion was perceived as less burdensome than daily, and twice-a-day more burdensome than once-a-day. CONCLUSION: Our results, while not generalizable in isolation, provide a valuable starting point to understand the complex construct of subject burden. This preliminary work is intended to be a catalyst for more in-depth research to better understand and predict burden and acceptable burden thresholds in clinical trials. Understanding subject burden is a vital component of human subject research that will be valuable in helping to inform future clinical trial designs.