Skip to main content
Log in

Considerations for Requiring Subjects to Provide a Response to Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments

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

Abstract

The increase in the use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) instruments has presented study teams with considerations not previously encountered with paper. Specifically, in an effort to minimize missing data, there is now the opportunity of requiring subjects to provide a response to an item before allowing the subject to proceed to the next item. While the ability to require subjects to respond to ePRO items would seem to guarantee a complete data set, it raises questions about the conditions under which it is appropriate to require subjects to respond to the items in an instrument. This article provides guidance on the circumstances under which allowing a subject to opt out of responding to ePRO items may be appropriate. Three main scenarios are discussed: (1) requiring subjects to complete all items in all the instruments in the study, (2) allowing subjects to opt out of at least some selective items that do not support key primary or secondary endpoints, and (3) allowing subjects to opt out of responding to any or all items in the study. For either of the 2 scenarios allowing the subject to opt out of responding to an item, the use of programmed edit checks is highly recommended to confirm that the subject intended to “skip” or “opt out of” the item. This ensures that, at the end of the study, the database contains an explicit data point indicating when a subject has actively decided to skip an item. While this article is focused on patient-reported outcomes, the issues raised could also apply to other clinical outcome assessments, such as clinician- and observer-reported outcomes.

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: 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.

  2. Vodicka E, Kim K, Devine EB, et al. Inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures in registered clinical trials: evidence from clinicaltrials.gov (2007–2013). Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;43:1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Marquis P, Caron M, Emery MP, et al. The role of health-related quality of life data in the drug approval processes in the US and Europe: a review of guidance documents and authorizations of medicinal products from 2006–2010. Pharm Med. 2011;25:147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bloom DE. Technology, experimentation, and the quality of survey data. Science. 1998;280:847–848.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Taenzer PA, Speca M, Atkinson MJ, et al. Computerized quality-of-life screening in an oncology clinic. Cancer Pract. 1997;5:168–175.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tourangeau R, Smith TW. Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin Q. 1996;60:275–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, et al. Patient noncompliance with paper diaries. BMJ. 2002;324:1193–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly-developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14:967–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly-developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14:978–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cappelleri JC, Zou KH, Bushmakin AG, Alvir JMJ, Alemayehu D, Symonds T. Patient-Reported Outcomes: Measurement, Implementation and Interpretation. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine: A Practical Guide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Fayers FM, Machin D. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-reported Outcomes. 2nd ed. Chichester, England: John Wiley; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 5th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: qualification process for drug development tools. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm230597.pdf. Published January 2014.

  15. Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, et al. The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1355–1360.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. National Research Council (NRC). 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 

  17. 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 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul O’Donohoe MSc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Donohoe, P., Lundy, J.J., Gnanasakthy, A. et al. Considerations for Requiring Subjects to Provide a Response to Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments. Ther Innov Regul Sci 49, 792–796 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015609647

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015609647

Keywords

Navigation