Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

Current practices in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection in clinical trials : a cross-sectional survey of UK trial staff and management

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Kyte, Derek, Ives, Jonathan, Draper, Heather and Calvert, Melanie (2016) Current practices in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection in clinical trials : a cross-sectional survey of UK trial staff and management. BMJ Open, 6 (10). e012281. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012281 ISSN 2044-6055.

Research output not available from this repository.

Request-a-Copy directly from author or use local Library Get it For Me service.

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012281

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

Objectives

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected in clinical trials should be administered in a standardised way across sites and routinely screened for avoidable missing data in order to maximise data quality/minimise risk of bias. Recent qualitative findings, however, have raised concerns about the consistency of PROM administration in UK trials. The purpose of this study was to determine the generalisability of these findings across the wider community of trial personnel.

Design

Online cross-sectional survey.

Setting

Participants were recruited from 55 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units and 19 Comprehensive Local Research Networks.

Participants

Research nurses, data managers/coordinators, trial managers and chief/principal investigators involved in clinical trials collecting PROMs.

Analysis

We undertook descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and directed thematic analysis of free-text comments. Factors associated with the management of missing PRO data were explored using logistic regression.

Results

Survey data from 767 respondents supported the generalisability of qualitative study findings, suggesting inconsistencies in PROM administration with regard to: the level of assistance given to trial participants; the timing of PROM completion in relation to the clinical consultation; and the management of missing data. Having ≥10 years experience in a research role was significantly associated with the appropriate management of missing PROM data (OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.82), p=0.035). There was a consensus that more PROM guidance was needed in future trials and agreement between professional groups about the necessary components.

Conclusions

There are inconsistencies in the way PROMs are administered by trial staff. Such inconsistencies may reduce the quality of data and have the potential to introduce bias. There is a need for improved guidance in future trials that support trial personnel in conducting optimal PROM data collection to inform patient care.

Item Type: Journal Article
Divisions: Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Social Science & Systems in Health (SSSH)
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Journal or Publication Title: BMJ Open
Publisher: BMJ
ISSN: 2044-6055
Official Date: 1 October 2016
Dates:
DateEvent
1 October 2016Published
7 September 2016Accepted
13 April 2016Submitted
Volume: 6
Number: 10
Article Number: e012281
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012281
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Open Access (Creative Commons)

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us