Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Bennett, Antonia V ^a   Dueck, Amylou C ^b   Mitchell, Sandra A ^c   Mendoza, Tito R ^d   Reeve, Bryce B ^a   Atkinson, Thomas M ^e   Castro, Kathleen M ^c   Denicoff, Andrea ^c   Rogak, Lauren J ^e   Harness, Jay K ^f   Bearden, James D ^g   Bryant, Donna ^h   Siegel, Robert D ⁱ   Schrag, Deborah ^j   Basch, Ethan ^e,k   Heon, Narre ^e   Shaw, Mary ^e   Ryan, Sean ^e   Stark, Liora P ^e   Malveaux, Donna ^d   Pettus, Wendy ^g   Gansauer, Lucy ^g   Wind, Jennifer ^j   Thomassie, Amy ^h   Davila, Gitana ^f   Alexander, Kathy ⁱ   more..

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^c NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^f ST JOSEPH HOSPITAL   (United States)

^g Gibbs Cancer Center and Research Institute   (United States)

^h The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins   (United States)

ⁱ HARTFORD HOSPITAL   (United States)

^j DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Adverse Events; Interactive Voice Response System; Mode of Administration; Patient Reported Outcomes; PRO CTCAE; Symptoms

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER THERAPY; COMPUTER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERACTIVE VOICE RESPONSE SYSTEM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAPER; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; VALIDATION STUDY; WEB ENABLED TOUCHSCREEN TABLET COMPUTER; ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; ADVERSE EFFECTS; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; CLASSIFICATION; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; MIDDLE AGED; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; NEOPLASMS; NOMENCLATURE; PERSONAL DIGITAL ASSISTANT; PSYCHOLOGY; RADIATION INJURY; RADIOTHERAPY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELF REPORT; UNITED STATES;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; AGED; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CHEMORADIOTHERAPY; COMPUTERS, HANDHELD; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (U.S.); NEOPLASMS; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RADIATION INJURIES; RADIOTHERAPY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF REPORT; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84959343077     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-016-0426-6     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, et al.: Development of the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(9).
2. Xiao C, Polomano R, Bruner DW. Comparison between patient-reported and clinician-observed symptoms in oncology. Cancer Nurs. 2013;36:E1-E16.
3. Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Mitchell SA, et al.: Validity and Reliability of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(8):1051-9.
4. Bruner DW, Hanisch LJ, Reeve BB, et al. Stakeholder perspectives on implementing the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Transl Behav Med. 2011;1:110-22.
5. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008;11:322-33.
6. Muehlhausen W, Doll H, Quadri N, et al. Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:167.
7. Lundy JJ, Coons SJ, Aaronson NK. Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:229-37.
8. Bjorner JB, Rose M, Gandek B, et al. Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:108-13.
9. Agel J, Rockwood T, Mundt JC, et al. Comparison of interactive voice response and written self-administered patient surveys for clinical research. Orthopedics. 2001;24:1155-7.
10. Dunn JA, Arakawa R, Greist JH, et al. Assessing the onset of antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction using interactive voice response technology. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68:525-32.
11. Lundy JJ, Coons SJ. Measurement equivalence of interactive voice response and paper versions of the EQ-5D in a cancer patient sample. Value Health. 2011;14:867-71.
12. Rush AJ, Bernstein IH, Trivedi MH, et al. An evaluation of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology and the hamilton rating scale for depression: a sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression trial report. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;59:493-501.
13. Bennett AV, Keenoy K, Shouery M, et al.: Evaluation of mode equivalence of the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument, LASA Quality of Life, and Subjective Significance Questionnaire items administered by Web, interactive voice response system (IVRS), and paper. Qual Life Res, 2015, Nov 21 [epub ahead of print].
14. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12:419-29.
15. Eremenco S, Coons SJ, Paty J, et al. PRO data collection in clinical trials using mixed modes: report of the ISPOR PRO mixed modes good research practices task force. Value Health. 2014;17:501-16.
16. Fawzy MR, Abernethy A, Schoen MW, et al.: Usability testing of the PRO-CTCAE measurement system in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 31 (suppl; abstr e17560), 2013.
17. Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Dueck AC, et al.: Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(7).
18. Reilly CM, Bruner DW, Mitchell SA, et al. A literature synthesis of symptom prevalence and severity in persons receiving active cancer treatment. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:1525-50.
19. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365-76.
20. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17:101-10.
21. Nunnally JC, Berstein I. Psychometric Methods (ed 3rd). New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
22. Murray J. Likert data: what to use, parametric or non-parametric? Int J Business and Soc Sci. 2013;4:258-64.
23. Norman G. LIkert scales, levels of measurement adn the "laws" of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15:625-32.
24. Yarandi H. Crossover Designs and Proc Mixed in SAS, Paper SD04. Nashville: The Proceedings of the SouthEast SAS Users Group; 2004.
25. Dunlop WP, Cortina JM, Vaslow JB, et al. Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:170-7.
26. Fleiss JL. Reliability of measurement. In: Fleiss JL, editor. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley; 1986. p. 1-32.
27. Atkinson TM, Li Y, Coffey CW, et al. Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:1159-64.