Abstract
Electronic data capture is fast becoming the preferred method of collecting patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in clinical trials. Data collection can be site-based (clinical study site), and typically collected on a tablet, or field-based (subject’s typical environment such as home, school, or workplace), and most often accomplished with handheld devices, such as a smartphone. While site and study subject compliance with protocol-specific data collection procedures using these devices is critical to trial success, so is the robustness of the device hardware and the software these devices use to capture the trial data. Technology failures and/or site or subject resistance to the electronic data capture protocol may lead a subject to record data on paper, which can result in undesirable data challenges. As such, both site and subject compliance issues and technology-related factors must be anticipated to adhere to the ePRO data collection plan. The objective of this paper is to provide the technology industry’s best practice recommendations for optimizing ePRO data collection in clinical trials by proposing the inclusion of a planned approach to data collection that includes viable electronic backup strategies so that defaulting to a paper-based backup becomes unnecessary.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Coons SJ, Eremenco S, Lundy JJ, O’Donohoe P, O’Gorman H, Malizia W. Capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data electronically: the past, present, and promise of ePRO measurement in clinical trials. Patient. 2015;8:301–309.
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry—Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Published December 2009. Accessed March 15, 2017.
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry–Electronic source data in clinical investigations. www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM328691.pdf. Published September 2013. Accessed March 15, 2017.
Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. BMJ. 2002;324:1193–1194.
Shields AL, Shiffman S, Stone A. Patient compliance in an ePRO environment: methods for consistent compliance management, measurement and reporting. In: Byrom B, Tiplady B, eds. ePRO: Electronic Solutions for Patient-Reported Data. Surrey, England: Gower; 2010:127–142.
Ganser AL, Raymond SA, Pearson JD. Data quality and power in clinical trials: a comparison of ePRO and paper in a randomized clinical trial. In: Byrom B, Tiplady B, eds. ePRO: Electronic Solutions for Patient-Reported Data. Surrey, England: Gower; 2010:49.
Fleming S, Barsdorf AI, Howry C, O’Gorman H, Coons SJ. Optimizing electronic capture of clinical outcome assessment data in clinical trials: the case of patient-reported endpoints. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2015;49:797–804.
Tiplady B. Electronic patient diaries and questionnaires-ePRO now delivering on the promise? Patient. 2010;3:179.
Elash CA, Tiplady B, Turner-Bowker DM, Cline J, DeRosa M, Scanlon M. Equivalence of paper and electronic administration of patient reported outcomes: a comparison in psoriatic arthritis. Value Health. 2015;18:A342.
Sussman RD, Richter LA, Tefera E, et al. Utilizing technology in assessment of lower urinary tract symptoms: a randomized trial of electronic versus paper voiding diaries. J Pelvic Med Surg. 2016;22:224–228.
Eremenco S, Coons SJ, Paty J, Coyne K, Bennett AV, McEntegart D. PRO data collection in clinical trials using mixed modes: report of the ISPOR PRO mixed modes good research practices task force. Value Health. 2014;17(5):501–516.
Ogheneovo E. Software dysfunction: why do software fail? J Comput Commun. 2014;2:25–35.
Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and pencil administration of patient reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic view. Value Health. 2008;11:322–333.
Muehlhausen W, Doll H, Quadri N, et al. Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:167.
Campbell N, Ali F, Finlay AY, Salek SS. Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(8):1949–1961.
Rutherford C, Costa D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Rice H, Gabb L, King M. Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:559–574.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Howry, C., Elash, C.A., Crescioni, M. et al. Best Practices for Avoiding Paper Backup When Implementing Electronic Approaches to Patient-Reported Outcome Data Collection in Clinical Trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci 53, 441–445 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018785160
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018785160