日本在上市后监测中使用自带设备(BYOD)引入电子患者报告结果(ePRO)的初步研究

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Naomi Sugimoto, Mika Morimasa, Hidetoshi Misawa, Nobushige Matsuoka, Yurami Sato, Hiromi Yamaguchi, Tetsuya Hiraiwa, Natsuno Yamashita, Akira Hoshino, Masanori Kawai
{"title":"日本在上市后监测中使用自带设备(BYOD)引入电子患者报告结果(ePRO)的初步研究","authors":"Naomi Sugimoto, Mika Morimasa, Hidetoshi Misawa, Nobushige Matsuoka, Yurami Sato, Hiromi Yamaguchi, Tetsuya Hiraiwa, Natsuno Yamashita, Akira Hoshino, Masanori Kawai","doi":"10.1007/s43441-025-00873-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The method of collecting electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data using the bring your own device (BYOD) approach has become very common recently, especially in clinical trials. We conducted a preliminary study to evaluate the processes before introducing ePRO using BYOD in regulatory-required observational post-marketing surveillance (PMS) in Japan.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multicenter observational study using a two-period, two-sequence, cross-over design. Participants were allocated to Group 1 (starting with ePRO) or Group 2 (starting with paper PRO). The observation period was 14 days in total: seven days each for ePRO and paper PRO. We assessed the usability, implementation process, support system, and materials for ePRO through questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participants in Group 1 (n = 78) and Group 2 (n = 73) were included in the analysis set. The collection of information with ePRO was comparable to that with paper PRO. We found no remarkable difference in data entry status between ePRO and paper PRO based on sex and no trend toward a higher proportion of missing data in ePRO with age. More than half of the participants responded favorably to most of the questionnaire items about ePRO. Although the investigators considered the materials for the ePRO system useful, there is still room for improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our two-week pilot indicates that ePRO can achieve data completeness comparable to paper in motivated clinics. The points to consider when using ePRO in actual PMS were confirmed. Further assessment in actual studies conducted in compliance with local regulations is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Preliminary Study Introducing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) Using Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in Post-marketing Surveillance in Japan.\",\"authors\":\"Naomi Sugimoto, Mika Morimasa, Hidetoshi Misawa, Nobushige Matsuoka, Yurami Sato, Hiromi Yamaguchi, Tetsuya Hiraiwa, Natsuno Yamashita, Akira Hoshino, Masanori Kawai\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43441-025-00873-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The method of collecting electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data using the bring your own device (BYOD) approach has become very common recently, especially in clinical trials. We conducted a preliminary study to evaluate the processes before introducing ePRO using BYOD in regulatory-required observational post-marketing surveillance (PMS) in Japan.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multicenter observational study using a two-period, two-sequence, cross-over design. Participants were allocated to Group 1 (starting with ePRO) or Group 2 (starting with paper PRO). The observation period was 14 days in total: seven days each for ePRO and paper PRO. We assessed the usability, implementation process, support system, and materials for ePRO through questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participants in Group 1 (n = 78) and Group 2 (n = 73) were included in the analysis set. The collection of information with ePRO was comparable to that with paper PRO. We found no remarkable difference in data entry status between ePRO and paper PRO based on sex and no trend toward a higher proportion of missing data in ePRO with age. More than half of the participants responded favorably to most of the questionnaire items about ePRO. Although the investigators considered the materials for the ePRO system useful, there is still room for improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our two-week pilot indicates that ePRO can achieve data completeness comparable to paper in motivated clinics. The points to consider when using ePRO in actual PMS were confirmed. Further assessment in actual studies conducted in compliance with local regulations is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"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/s43441-025-00873-0\",\"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/s43441-025-00873-0","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:使用自带设备(BYOD)方法收集电子患者报告结果(ePRO)数据的方法最近变得非常普遍,特别是在临床试验中。我们在日本进行了一项初步研究,以评估在监管要求的上市后监测(PMS)中引入使用自带设备的ePRO之前的流程。方法:我们采用两期、两序列、交叉设计进行了一项多中心观察性研究。参与者被分配到组1(从ePRO开始)或组2(从纸质PRO开始)。观察期共14 d, ePRO组和纸质PRO组各7 d。我们通过问卷对ePRO的可用性、实施过程、支持系统和材料进行评估。结果:组1 (n = 78)和组2 (n = 73)的所有参与者均被纳入分析集。ePRO收集的信息与纸质PRO相当。我们发现ePRO和纸质PRO之间的数据录入状态在性别上没有显著差异,ePRO中数据缺失的比例也没有随着年龄的增长而增加的趋势。超过一半的参与者对问卷中关于ePRO的大部分项目的回答都是肯定的。尽管研究人员认为ePRO系统的材料是有用的,但仍有改进的余地。结论:我们为期两周的试验表明,ePRO可以在有动机的诊所实现与论文相当的数据完整性。确定了在实际PMS中使用ePRO时需要考虑的问题。需要根据当地法规对实际研究进行进一步评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Preliminary Study Introducing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) Using Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in Post-marketing Surveillance in Japan.

Background: The method of collecting electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data using the bring your own device (BYOD) approach has become very common recently, especially in clinical trials. We conducted a preliminary study to evaluate the processes before introducing ePRO using BYOD in regulatory-required observational post-marketing surveillance (PMS) in Japan.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter observational study using a two-period, two-sequence, cross-over design. Participants were allocated to Group 1 (starting with ePRO) or Group 2 (starting with paper PRO). The observation period was 14 days in total: seven days each for ePRO and paper PRO. We assessed the usability, implementation process, support system, and materials for ePRO through questionnaires.

Results: All participants in Group 1 (n = 78) and Group 2 (n = 73) were included in the analysis set. The collection of information with ePRO was comparable to that with paper PRO. We found no remarkable difference in data entry status between ePRO and paper PRO based on sex and no trend toward a higher proportion of missing data in ePRO with age. More than half of the participants responded favorably to most of the questionnaire items about ePRO. Although the investigators considered the materials for the ePRO system useful, there is still room for improvement.

Conclusion: Our two-week pilot indicates that ePRO can achieve data completeness comparable to paper in motivated clinics. The points to consider when using ePRO in actual PMS were confirmed. Further assessment in actual studies conducted in compliance with local regulations is needed.

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