Skip to main content
Log in

Optimizing Electronic Capture of Clinical Outcome Assessment Data in Clinical Trials: The Case of Patient-Reported Endpoints

  • Special Section on Clinical Outcome Assessments: Analytical Report
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For a number of compelling scientific, operational, and regulatory reasons, the use of electronic data capture is becoming the preferred means of collecting clinical outcome assessment (eg, patient-reported outcome [PRO]) data in clinical trials. Electronic PRO (ePRO) data collection leverages screen-based technologies (eg, handheld devices, tablet computers, and web-based systems) and telephone-based (eg, interactive voice response) systems. Data collection is routinely either site based (ie, clinical study site) or field based (eg, subject’s home, school, or workplace). While tablet computers are often used for site-based PRO data collection, handheld devices have become the mainstay for ePRO data capture in field-based settings. The data collection devices are usually provisioned to the sites or subjects by an ePRO system provider contracted by the clinical trial sponsor. With site-based data collection, study staff are responsible for ensuring subject compliance with the protocol-driven data collection procedures, whereas with field-based data collection, the subject is responsible for compliance with the data entry requirements and sites are accountable for remotely monitoring the data for compliance. In addition to site and subject compliance issues, technology-related factors must be anticipated in order to adhere to the electronic PRO data collection plan. The objective of this paper is to describe study site-, subject-, and technology-related factors that may lead to deviations from the planned electronic collection of PRO data (eg, defaulting to paper-based data collection) and to provide recommendations aimed at preventing potential problems or quickly resolving problems once they occur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. 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 June 11, 2015.

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. BMJ 2002;324:1193–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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;17:501–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. U.S. 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 June 11, 2015.

  7. Zbrozek A, Hebert J, Gogates G, et al. Validation of electronic systems to capture patient-reported outcome (PRO) data—Recommendations for clinical trial teams: report of the ISPOR ePRO systems validation task force. Value Health. 2013;16:480–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tiplady B, Crompton GK, Dewer MH, et al. The use of electronic diaries in respiratory studies. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:759–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bliven BD, Kaufman SE, Spertus JA. Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: validity, time, benefits and patient preference. Qual Life Res. 2001;10:15–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tiplady B, Goodman K, Cummings G, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: assessing the equivalence of electronic and paper data collection. Patient. 2010;3:133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. National Research Council. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Panel on handling missing data in clinical trials. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fairclough DL. Design and Analysis of Quality of Life Studies in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Mallinckrodt C, Roger J, Chuang-Stein C, et al. Recent developments in the prevention and treatment of missing data. Ther Innov Reg Sci. 2014;48:68–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods. 2002;7:147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Joel Coons PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fleming, S., Barsdorf, A.I., Howry, C. et al. Optimizing Electronic Capture of Clinical Outcome Assessment Data in Clinical Trials: The Case of Patient-Reported Endpoints. Ther Innov Regul Sci 49, 797–804 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015609102

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015609102

Keywords

Navigation