电子患者报告的结果评估:评估患者对每次筛查项目数量的偏好。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Jennifer Lord-Bessen, Danielle Rodriguez, Karin S Coyne, Spencer Schaff, Alexandra V Kalpadakis-Smith
{"title":"电子患者报告的结果评估:评估患者对每次筛查项目数量的偏好。","authors":"Jennifer Lord-Bessen, Danielle Rodriguez, Karin S Coyne, Spencer Schaff, Alexandra V Kalpadakis-Smith","doi":"10.1007/s43441-025-00811-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In clinical trials, the single-item-per-screen format is commonly used for electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs). However, participant preferences for this format over multiple items per screen have not been investigated. This study evaluated participant preferences for single-item-per-screen vs. multiple-items-per-screen ePRO formats, the effect on completion times, and the comparability of scores between formats.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participation in this randomized, crossover, observational study involved ePRO completion in both single-item-per-screen and multiple-items-per-screen formats on an electronic tablet device during two study visits. A paper-based preference questionnaire was completed at each visit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-seven adults (mean [SD] age = 49.6 [15.4] years; 51.4% female; 54.1% White) enrolled and 36 participants completed both visits. Twelve participants (33.3%) preferred the multiple-item format, 12 (33.3%) preferred the single-item format, 10 (27.8%) had no preference, and 2 (5.6%) did not notice a difference. Seventeen participants (47.2%) preferred the single-item format when participating in a clinical trial, and most (n = 20; 55.6%) believed that others would prefer this format in a clinical trial. The ePRO completion time (minutes:seconds) was longer for the single-item format than the multiple-item format (mean [SD], 6:42 [2:24] vs. 6:21 [2:22]; p = 0.1540). The ePRO scores were similar across both formats.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provided evidence that both single-item and multiple-items-per-screen presented on an electronic tablet device are acceptable to users and that format preference may be specific to each individual. Thus, clinical programs need to consider the targeted study population, the purpose of use, and the overall trial design when designing ePRO solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":"1138-1147"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electronic patient-reported outcome assessments: evaluating patient preference for the number of items per screen.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Lord-Bessen, Danielle Rodriguez, Karin S Coyne, Spencer Schaff, Alexandra V Kalpadakis-Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43441-025-00811-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In clinical trials, the single-item-per-screen format is commonly used for electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs). However, participant preferences for this format over multiple items per screen have not been investigated. This study evaluated participant preferences for single-item-per-screen vs. multiple-items-per-screen ePRO formats, the effect on completion times, and the comparability of scores between formats.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participation in this randomized, crossover, observational study involved ePRO completion in both single-item-per-screen and multiple-items-per-screen formats on an electronic tablet device during two study visits. A paper-based preference questionnaire was completed at each visit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-seven adults (mean [SD] age = 49.6 [15.4] years; 51.4% female; 54.1% White) enrolled and 36 participants completed both visits. Twelve participants (33.3%) preferred the multiple-item format, 12 (33.3%) preferred the single-item format, 10 (27.8%) had no preference, and 2 (5.6%) did not notice a difference. Seventeen participants (47.2%) preferred the single-item format when participating in a clinical trial, and most (n = 20; 55.6%) believed that others would prefer this format in a clinical trial. The ePRO completion time (minutes:seconds) was longer for the single-item format than the multiple-item format (mean [SD], 6:42 [2:24] vs. 6:21 [2:22]; p = 0.1540). The ePRO scores were similar across both formats.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provided evidence that both single-item and multiple-items-per-screen presented on an electronic tablet device are acceptable to users and that format preference may be specific to each individual. Thus, clinical programs need to consider the targeted study population, the purpose of use, and the overall trial design when designing ePRO solutions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1138-1147\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"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/s43441-025-00811-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-025-00811-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在临床试验中,单屏幕格式通常用于电子患者报告结果(ePROs)。然而,参与者对这种格式的偏好超过每个屏幕的多个项目尚未被调查。本研究评估了参与者对单项目/屏幕和多项目/屏幕ePRO格式的偏好,对完成时间的影响,以及格式之间得分的可比性。方法:这项随机、交叉、观察性研究的参与者在两次研究访问期间在电子平板设备上以单项目/屏幕和多项目/屏幕格式完成ePRO。在每次访问时完成一份基于纸张的偏好问卷。结果:37例成人(平均[SD]年龄= 49.6[15.4]岁;51.4%的女性;54.1%白人)入组,36名参与者完成了两次访问。12名参与者(33.3%)更喜欢多项目格式,12名(33.3%)更喜欢单项目格式,10名(27.8%)没有偏好,2名(5.6%)没有注意到差异。17名参与者(47.2%)在参加临床试验时更喜欢单项目格式,大多数(n = 20;55.6%)认为其他人在临床试验中更喜欢这种形式。单题格式的ePRO完成时间(分:秒)比多题格式的更长(平均[SD], 6:42 [2:24] vs. 6:21 [2:22];p = 0.1540)。两种格式的ePRO分数相似。结论:本研究提供的证据表明,在电子平板设备上显示的单项目和多项目都是用户可以接受的,并且格式偏好可能因人而异。因此,临床方案在设计ePRO解决方案时需要考虑目标研究人群、使用目的和整体试验设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Electronic patient-reported outcome assessments: evaluating patient preference for the number of items per screen.

Background: In clinical trials, the single-item-per-screen format is commonly used for electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs). However, participant preferences for this format over multiple items per screen have not been investigated. This study evaluated participant preferences for single-item-per-screen vs. multiple-items-per-screen ePRO formats, the effect on completion times, and the comparability of scores between formats.

Methods: Participation in this randomized, crossover, observational study involved ePRO completion in both single-item-per-screen and multiple-items-per-screen formats on an electronic tablet device during two study visits. A paper-based preference questionnaire was completed at each visit.

Results: Thirty-seven adults (mean [SD] age = 49.6 [15.4] years; 51.4% female; 54.1% White) enrolled and 36 participants completed both visits. Twelve participants (33.3%) preferred the multiple-item format, 12 (33.3%) preferred the single-item format, 10 (27.8%) had no preference, and 2 (5.6%) did not notice a difference. Seventeen participants (47.2%) preferred the single-item format when participating in a clinical trial, and most (n = 20; 55.6%) believed that others would prefer this format in a clinical trial. The ePRO completion time (minutes:seconds) was longer for the single-item format than the multiple-item format (mean [SD], 6:42 [2:24] vs. 6:21 [2:22]; p = 0.1540). The ePRO scores were similar across both formats.

Conclusion: This study provided evidence that both single-item and multiple-items-per-screen presented on an electronic tablet device are acceptable to users and that format preference may be specific to each individual. Thus, clinical programs need to consider the targeted study population, the purpose of use, and the overall trial design when designing ePRO solutions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信