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}
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.
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