An Evaluation of Time Spent Completing Electronically Collected Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-08 DOI:10.1007/s43441-025-00767-1
Lucy Andersen, Michael Williams, Sheryl Pease, Harman Dhatt, Patricia Delong
{"title":"An Evaluation of Time Spent Completing Electronically Collected Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials.","authors":"Lucy Andersen, Michael Williams, Sheryl Pease, Harman Dhatt, Patricia Delong","doi":"10.1007/s43441-025-00767-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important measures of efficacy in the context of clinical trials but are sometimes identified as time and resource intensive to study participants and site personnel. The objective of this research was to evaluate the amount of time that participants spend completing PROs via an electronic device in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials across several disease areas.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The electronic Clinical Outcome Assessment (eCOA) data were obtained from Johnson & Johnson clinical trials across various disease areas from 2016 to 2023. Data were acquired from internal and external sources including clinical trial sites and eCOA partners. In total, 82 trials were analyzed, containing data from 33,633 unique participants, and 1,083,994 measurements of completed electronic PRO instruments. After data cleaning, descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed. Electronic PRO completion time was examined in two ways: by time-per-item and time-per-instrument for each PRO.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On average, participants spend about 16 s per item and an average of 2 min to complete a PRO instrument electronically. The average time to complete PRO instruments varied significantly by disease area and most eCOA were completed on study site tablets (68%) or personal handheld devices (31%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, patients spend an average of 16 s per item and 2 min per PRO instrument in clinical trial studies. PROs are a crucial component of clinical trial outcomes data and can be efficiently completed electronically by participants in clinical trials in a short amount of time.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":"619-628"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-025-00767-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important measures of efficacy in the context of clinical trials but are sometimes identified as time and resource intensive to study participants and site personnel. The objective of this research was to evaluate the amount of time that participants spend completing PROs via an electronic device in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials across several disease areas.

Methods: The electronic Clinical Outcome Assessment (eCOA) data were obtained from Johnson & Johnson clinical trials across various disease areas from 2016 to 2023. Data were acquired from internal and external sources including clinical trial sites and eCOA partners. In total, 82 trials were analyzed, containing data from 33,633 unique participants, and 1,083,994 measurements of completed electronic PRO instruments. After data cleaning, descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed. Electronic PRO completion time was examined in two ways: by time-per-item and time-per-instrument for each PRO.

Results: On average, participants spend about 16 s per item and an average of 2 min to complete a PRO instrument electronically. The average time to complete PRO instruments varied significantly by disease area and most eCOA were completed on study site tablets (68%) or personal handheld devices (31%).

Conclusions: Overall, patients spend an average of 16 s per item and 2 min per PRO instrument in clinical trial studies. PROs are a crucial component of clinical trial outcomes data and can be efficiently completed electronically by participants in clinical trials in a short amount of time.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对临床试验中完成电子收集的患者报告结果所用时间的评估。
目的:在临床试验中,患者报告的结果(pro)是衡量疗效的重要指标,但有时对研究参与者和现场人员来说,这需要耗费大量的时间和资源。本研究的目的是评估参与者在几个疾病领域的2期和3期临床试验中通过电子设备完成pro的时间。方法:获取强生公司2016年至2023年各疾病领域临床试验的电子临床结局评估(eCOA)数据。数据来自内部和外部来源,包括临床试验地点和eCOA合作伙伴。总共分析了82项试验,包含来自33,633名独特参与者的数据,以及完成的电子PRO仪器的1,083,994次测量。数据清理后,进行描述性和多变量分析。电子PRO完成时间以两种方式进行检查:每项时间和每个PRO的每仪器时间。结果:参与者平均每个项目花费约16秒,平均2分钟完成电子PRO仪器。完成PRO仪器的平均时间因疾病区域而异,大多数eCOA是在研究现场平板电脑(68%)或个人手持设备(31%)上完成的。结论:总体而言,在临床试验研究中,患者平均花费16 s和2 min在每个PRO仪器上。PROs是临床试验结果数据的重要组成部分,临床试验参与者可以在短时间内有效地通过电子方式完成pro。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
期刊最新文献
Ethical and Regulatory Awareness of Clinical Trials: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study from Poland. RWE Submission for European Regulators and Payers: Challenges, Uncertainties, and Opportunities. Bioequivalence of Generic Semi-solid Topical Dermatological Drug Products: Scientific and Regulatory Perspective from Japan's 2025 Guidelines. Use of Information Technology to Mitigate Protocol Deviations in Clinical Research: A Quality Improvement Project. Application of Artificial Intelligence in MedDRA Coding: A Practical Exploration from Clinical Data Management Perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1