临床试验结果评估中患者参与负担的测量。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Abigail Dirks, Hana Do, Chelsea Gallagher, Arnab Roy, Tricia Siddharth, Emily Szabo, Kenneth Getz
{"title":"临床试验结果评估中患者参与负担的测量。","authors":"Abigail Dirks, Hana Do, Chelsea Gallagher, Arnab Roy, Tricia Siddharth, Emily Szabo, Kenneth Getz","doi":"10.1007/s43441-025-00832-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), in collaboration with ZS and Tufts CSDD, recently conducted a detailed evaluation of participation burden associated with clinical outcome assessments, including patient reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods approach was used including an online global survey followed by in-depth interviews with patients and investigative sites to understand underlying causes of participation burden.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>258 patients completed the online survey, 12 interviews were conducted among patients, and 12 interviews were conducted among investigative site personnel. The results show significant differences in patient perceptions of participation burden depending on the modalities and types of clinical outcome assessments administered in clinical trials. Specific modalities associated with elevated burden included those longer than 30 min and those completed several times per month. Perceived burden of clinical outcome assessments varied significantly by patient age and ethnicity. Investigative sites also reported the burden associated with administering electronic clinical outcome assessments - most notably the technical challenges and additional patient assistance required during initial setup, first patient visit, and technology management across different sponsors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study raise clinical team and protocol author awareness of the patient participation burden associated with distinct types and modalities of clinical outcome assessments and informs decisions to selectively reduce this burden. The results of this study build on the Tufts CSDD-ZS Patient Burden Algorithm.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Patient Participation Burden in Clinical Outcome Assessments for Clinical Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Abigail Dirks, Hana Do, Chelsea Gallagher, Arnab Roy, Tricia Siddharth, Emily Szabo, Kenneth Getz\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43441-025-00832-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), in collaboration with ZS and Tufts CSDD, recently conducted a detailed evaluation of participation burden associated with clinical outcome assessments, including patient reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods approach was used including an online global survey followed by in-depth interviews with patients and investigative sites to understand underlying causes of participation burden.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>258 patients completed the online survey, 12 interviews were conducted among patients, and 12 interviews were conducted among investigative site personnel. The results show significant differences in patient perceptions of participation burden depending on the modalities and types of clinical outcome assessments administered in clinical trials. Specific modalities associated with elevated burden included those longer than 30 min and those completed several times per month. Perceived burden of clinical outcome assessments varied significantly by patient age and ethnicity. Investigative sites also reported the burden associated with administering electronic clinical outcome assessments - most notably the technical challenges and additional patient assistance required during initial setup, first patient visit, and technology management across different sponsors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study raise clinical team and protocol author awareness of the patient participation burden associated with distinct types and modalities of clinical outcome assessments and informs decisions to selectively reduce this burden. The results of this study build on the Tufts CSDD-ZS Patient Burden Algorithm.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-21\",\"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/s43441-025-00832-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"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/s43441-025-00832-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS)与ZS和Tufts CSDD合作,最近进行了与临床结果评估相关的参与负担的详细评估,包括患者报告的结果。方法:采用混合方法,包括在线全球调查,然后与患者和调查地点进行深入访谈,以了解参与负担的潜在原因。结果:258例患者完成了在线调查,对患者进行了12次访谈,对调查现场人员进行了12次访谈。结果显示,根据临床试验中实施的临床结果评估的方式和类型,患者对参与负担的看法存在显著差异。与加重负担相关的特定治疗方式包括治疗时间超过30分钟和每月完成几次的治疗。临床结果评估的感知负担因患者年龄和种族而有显著差异。调查网站还报告了与管理电子临床结果评估相关的负担——最明显的是在初始设置、首次患者就诊和不同赞助商的技术管理期间需要的技术挑战和额外的患者协助。结论:本研究的结果提高了临床团队和方案作者对不同类型和方式的临床结果评估相关的患者参与负担的认识,并为有选择地减轻这种负担提供决策依据。本研究结果建立在Tufts CSDD-ZS患者负担算法的基础上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring Patient Participation Burden in Clinical Outcome Assessments for Clinical Trials.

Background: Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), in collaboration with ZS and Tufts CSDD, recently conducted a detailed evaluation of participation burden associated with clinical outcome assessments, including patient reported outcomes.

Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used including an online global survey followed by in-depth interviews with patients and investigative sites to understand underlying causes of participation burden.

Results: 258 patients completed the online survey, 12 interviews were conducted among patients, and 12 interviews were conducted among investigative site personnel. The results show significant differences in patient perceptions of participation burden depending on the modalities and types of clinical outcome assessments administered in clinical trials. Specific modalities associated with elevated burden included those longer than 30 min and those completed several times per month. Perceived burden of clinical outcome assessments varied significantly by patient age and ethnicity. Investigative sites also reported the burden associated with administering electronic clinical outcome assessments - most notably the technical challenges and additional patient assistance required during initial setup, first patient visit, and technology management across different sponsors.

Conclusion: The results of this study raise clinical team and protocol author awareness of the patient participation burden associated with distinct types and modalities of clinical outcome assessments and informs decisions to selectively reduce this burden. The results of this study build on the Tufts CSDD-ZS Patient Burden Algorithm.

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