Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Training on the Use of Technology to Collect Patient-Reported Outcome Data Electronically in Clinical Trials: Best Practice Recommendations from the ePRO Consortium

  • Clinical Trials: Commentary
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Electronic capture of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data has many advantages over paper-based data collection. Regulatory agencies have consistently supported the use of electronic PRO (ePRO) data capture and recommended participant and site staff training on the correct use of electronic data capture systems. The objective of this paper is to outline best practice recommendations for training end users, including site staff and study participants, on the use of ePRO technology in clinical trials to enable consistent, accurate, and complete data collection. Site personnel should be trained on study-specific as well as technology-specific topics and be given instructions on whom to contact to obtain technical support. Optimal training takes place over time using multiple modalities, including hands-on, face-to-face training at an investigator meeting or directly in the clinical site; remote training via webinar or teleconference; interactive on-demand self-paced-training via e-learning modalities; and supplemented by proxy training performed by study clinical research associates. Like site personnel training, study participants should be provided with individual, hands-on training by site staff at the initiation of the trial and in conjunction with interactive electronic training modules that can be accessed on-demand throughout the duration of the trial. The recommendations put forth in this paper provide a structured framework for the training that site personnel and study participants need to optimize the advantages trials can gain from using ePRO data collection systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Elash CA, Turner-Bowker DM, Cline J, DeRosa M, Scanlon M. Equivalence of paper and electronic modes of administration of patient-reported outcomes: a comparison in psoriatic arthritis. Value Health. 2015;18:A342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ring AE, Cheong KA, Watkins CL, Meddis D, Cella D, Harper PG. A randomized study of electronic diary versus paper and pencil collection of patient-reported outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Patient. 2008;1:105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Salaffi F, Gasparini S, Grassi W. The use of computer touch-screen technology for the collection of patient-reported outcome data in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with standardized paper questionnaires. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2009;27:459–468.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tiplady BG, Cummings G, Lyle D, Carrington R, Battersby C, Ralston SH. Patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: assessing the equivalence of electronic and paper data collection. Patient. 2010;3:133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tiplady BG, Dewar MH, Bollert FE, Matuslewicz SP, Campbell LM, Brackenridge D. The use of electronic diaries in respiratory studies. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Part 11, Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures-Scope and Application. https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm125067.htm. Published August 2003. Accessed March 24, 2017.

  7. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Published December 2009. Accessed March 24, 2017.

  8. European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on expectations for electronic source data and data transcribed to electronic data collection tools in clinical trials. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2010/08/WC500095754.pdf. Published August 2010. Accessed March 20, 2017.

  9. Coons SJ, Eremenco S, Lundy JJ, O’Donohoe P, O’Gorman H, Malizia W. Capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data electronically: the past, present, and promise of ePRO measurement in clinical trials. Patient. 2015;8:301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hufford MR, Shields AL, Shiffman S, Paty J, Balabanis M. Reactivity to ecological momentary assessment: an example using undergraduate problem drinkers. Psychol Addict Behav. 2002;16:205–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. BMJ. 2002;324:1193–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fleming SB, Barsdorf AI, Howry C, O’Gorman H, Coons SJ. Optimizing electronic capture of clinical outcome assessment data in clinical trials: the case of patient-reported endpoints. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015;49:797–804.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: investigator responsibilities—protecting the rights, safety, and welfare of study subjects. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/UCM187772.pdf. Published October 2009. Accessed March 18, 2017.

  14. Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E. Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:337–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hall C. The evolution of clinical trial training. Scrip Clinical Research. 2012; 24–25.

  16. Hollen PJ, Gralla RJ, Stewart JA, Meharchand JM, Wierzbicki R, Leighl N. Can a computerized format replace a paper form in PRO and HRQL evaluation? Psychometric testing of the computer-assisted LCSS instrument (eLCSS-QL). Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:165–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pashler H, Bottge B, Graesser A, Koedinger K, McDaniel M, Metcalfe J. Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning, IES Practice Guide (NCER 2007-2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education; September 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McKeachie MS. Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research and Theory for College and University Teachers. Lexington, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Davis B. Tools for Teaching. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang D, Birggs R, Nunamker J. Instructional video in e-learning: assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Inf Manage. 2006;43:12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. European Medicines Agency. The use of patient reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies: appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2016/04/WC500205159.pdf. Published November 2016. Accessed March 24, 2017.

  22. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of asthma. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/12/WC500198877.pdf. Published May 2015. Accessed March 24, 2017.

  23. Food and Drug Administration. Ulcerative colitis: clinical trial endpoints guidance for industry. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM515143.pdf. Published August 2016. Accessed March 24, 2017.

  24. Kyte D, Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, et al. Systematic evaluation of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of clinical trial protocols. PLoS One. 2014;9:e110229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. eResearchTechnology Inc, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Jenny J. Ly PhD & Susan M. Dallabrida PhD

  2. Critical Path Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Mabel Crescioni DrPH & Sonya Eremenco MA

  3. Bracket, Wayne, PA, USA

    Serge Bodart MSc & Adam J. Butler

  4. Goodyear, AZ, USA

    Mario Donoso BA

  5. ERT, 1818 Market St, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, USA

    Jenny J. Ly PhD

Authors
  1. Jenny J. Ly PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mabel Crescioni DrPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sonya Eremenco MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Serge Bodart MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mario Donoso BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Adam J. Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Susan M. Dallabrida PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

ePRO Consortium

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jenny J. Ly PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ly, J.J., Crescioni, M., Eremenco, S. et al. Training on the Use of Technology to Collect Patient-Reported Outcome Data Electronically in Clinical Trials: Best Practice Recommendations from the ePRO Consortium. Ther Innov Regul Sci 53, 431–440 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018796206

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018796206

Keywords

Search

Navigation