Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study.
Volume
13
Pagination
e073817 - ?
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073817
Journal
BMJ Open
Issue
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are currently collected from trial participants using paper questionnaires by the Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR-CTSU). Streamlining PRO collection using electronic questionnaires (ePRO) may improve data collection and patient experience. Here, we outline our protocol for a Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE), which investigates the acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SPRUCE was developed alongside patient and public contributors. SPRUCE runs in multiple host trials with a partially randomised patient preference design, allowing participants to be randomised or choose their preference of electronic or paper questionnaires. Questionnaires are scheduled in accordance with host trial follow-up. The primary objective will assess differences in return rates (compliance) between ePRO and paper PROs at the first timepoint post-host trial intervention in the randomised group. Paper PRO compliance is expected to be 90%. 244 randomised participants are required to exclude ≤80% compliance rates with ePRO (10% non-inferiority margin, with 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05). SPRUCE aims to assess acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials, establish whether ePRO is acceptable to ICR-CTSU trial participants and can capture complete PRO data, consistent with paper PROs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The SPRUCE protocol (ICR-CTSU/2021/10074) was approved by the Coventry and Warwick Central Research Ethics Committee (21/WM/0223) on 21 October 2021. Results will be disseminated via presentations, publications and lay summaries. No participant identifiable data will be included. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SWAT169.
Authors
Philipps, L; Foster, S; Gardiner, D; Gath, J; Gillman, A; Haviland, J; Hill, E; King, D; Manning, G; Stiles, MCollections
Language
Licence information
The following license files are associated with this item:
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Do self-management interventions in COPD patients work and which patients benefit most? An individual patient data meta-analysis
Jonkman, NH; Westland, H; Trappenburg, JCA; Groenwold, RHH; Bischoff, EWMA; Bourbeau, J; Bucknall, CE; Coultas, D; Effing, TW; Epton, MJ (2016) -
HepFree: Screening migrant patients for viral hepatitis in primary care. A 90,000 patient randomised controlled trial indicates benefits are most obvious in older patients
Flanagan, S; Appleby, VJ; Gaviria, J; Kunkel, J; Madurasinghe, V; Eldridge, S; Moreea, S; Agarwal, K; Barnes, E; Griffiths, C (2018-04) -
THE VIRTUAL PATIENT GROUP: AN EFFECTIVE WAY OF ENGAGING PATIENTS AND GATHERING ESSENTIAL FEEDBACK TO IMPROVE SERVICE DELIVERY AND MEDICAL CARE FOR CHRONIC HEPATITIS B PATIENTS
Abbott, J; Elangovan, L; Kennedy, P (2022)