Explore the vast range of titles available.

Within current literature and practice, the category of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures has been expanded into the broader category of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), which includes the subcategory of PRO, as well as clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO), observer-reported outcome (ObsRO), and performance outcome (PerfO) measure subcategories. However, despite this conceptual expansion, recommendations associated with translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of COAs remain focused on PRO measures, which has created a gap in specific process recommendations for the remaining types. This lack of recommendations has led to inconsistent approaches being implemented, leading to uncertainty in the scientific community regarding suitable methods. To address this gap, the ISOQOL Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG) has developed recommendations specific to each of the three COA types currently lacking such documentation to support a standardized approach to their translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation. The recommended process utilized to translate ObsRO, ClinRO and PerfO measures from one language to another aligns closely with the industry standard process for PRO measures. The substantial differences between respondent categories across COA types require targeted approaches to the cognitive interviewing procedures utilized within the linguistic validation process, including the use of patients for patient-facing text in ClinRO measures, and the need to interview the targeted observers for ObsROs measures.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an important means of evaluating the treatment benefit of new medical products. It is recognized that PRO measures should be used when assessing concepts best known by the patient or best measured from the patient’s perspective. As a result, there is growing emphasis on well defined and reliable PRO measures. In addition, advances in technology have significantly increased electronic PRO (ePRO) data collection capabilities and options in clinical trials. The movement from paper-based to ePRO data capture has enhanced the integrity and accuracy of clinical trial data and is encouraged by regulators. A primary distinction in the types of ePRO platforms is between telephone-based interactive voice response systems and screen-based systems. Handheld touchscreen-based devices have become the mainstay for remote (i.e., off-site, unsupervised) PRO data collection in clinical trials. The conventional approach is to provide study subjects with a handheld device with a device-based proprietary software program. However, an emerging alternative for clinical trials is called bring your own device (BYOD). Leveraging study subjects’ own Internet-enabled mobile devices for remote PRO data collection (via a downloadable app or a Web-based data collection portal) has become possible due to the widespread use of personal smartphones and tablets. However, there are a number of scientific and operational issues that must be addressed before BYOD can be routinely considered as a practical alternative to conventional ePRO data collection methods. Nevertheless, the future for ePRO data collection is bright and the promise of BYOD opens a new chapter in its evolution.

Background Translation teams conducting translation and cultural adaptation find it paramount to properly describe concepts of items within clinical outcome assessments (COAs). To minimize potential threats to linguistic/conceptual equivalence, these teams must understand the concepts a COA intends to measure. This research provides recommendations for the process of developing concept definitions in general, as well as specific recommendations on who should be involved in the process and what a concept definition document should contain. Methods The Concept Definition Working Group of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG) carried out a literature review and a survey of 20 professionals working in the area of translation and linguistic validation of COAs. The Working Group based recommendations on a combination of survey results and consensus building via online meetings. Results Translation teams should develop concept definitions during the preparation phase of the translation process, assuming they do not already exist, and include COA developers and project managers with experience in linguistic validation and conceptual analysis of COAs. The Working Group recommends that concept definitions consist of information related to the therapeutic area being studied, information related to the COA development process, definitions of concepts and domains, as well as elaboration of colloquialisms and acceptable/unacceptable translation alternatives. We recommend centralized distribution of concept definitions. Conclusions Concept definitions guide stakeholders and ensure all parties align on the intended meaning of items being translated. While experts have made recommendations for best practices around translation and linguistic validation methodology, they have not clearly delineated the process of defining concepts. The Concept Definition Working Group of the ISOQOL TCA-SIG has therefore developed a set of recommendations for the process of defining concepts. With these recommendations the Working Group intends to standardize the development of concept definitions with the goal of enhancing conceptual equivalence across translations to support data pooling and provide confidence that clinical trial data are comparable, interpretable, and can be relied upon in evaluating clinical benefit of treatments.

With the growth of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement, questions arise regarding how copyright protection applies to PRO instruments in general and to their translations in particular. The main objectives of this reflection paper are: 1) to help authors of PRO instruments understand basic rules of intellectual property and copyright that protect the integrity of their instruments and derivatives; and 2) to provide recommendations to authors and users of PRO instruments to prevent misuse or abuse. National laws on intellectual property (IP) and the international Berne Convention fully apply to PRO instruments since they are creations of the mind. Therefore, the copyright holder / owner / claimant of a PRO instrument, i.e., the person or legal entity who owns the copyright of the instrument, is granted exclusive rights that are divided into two main categories: moral and economic rights. Moral rights are: 1) the right of attribution (or right of paternity), i.e., the right to claim authorship of the work, 2) the right against false attribution, and 3) the right of integrity, i.e., the right to object to any mutilation, deformation or modification of the work. Economic rights represent the exclusive rights of the author to make or authorize reproduction, development of derivative works, distribution and communication to the public. In other words, the PRO instrument’s copyright holder controls access (distribution, reproduction), and authorizes all derivative works, i.e., adaptations (e.g., electronic formats), modifications (e.g., shorter versions), and translations. Hence, the access to and use of an original PRO instrument and its derivatives in any kind of research should always be associated with the identification of its copyright holder. However, in some cases, this identification may be challenging, in particular when copyright ownership is not clearly defined. To prevent ownership conflicts as well as misuse or abuse of PRO instruments, the ISOQOL Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG) provides recommendations to authors of PRO instruments and their users. In particular, the TCA-SIG recommends that the ownership of PRO instruments and their derivatives should be defined from the beginning (i.e., from the development of the instrument) and along the life cycle of the instrument between all parties involved. These recommendations apply not only to PRO instruments but also to all the other clinical outcome assessments (COAs), since they are also creations of the mind.

Based on the literature and collective experience and consensus of the authors, this article provides a definition for an event-driven electronic diary (EDeD), outlines considerations for the use of EDeDs, and provides best practice recommendations for their design and implementation in clinical trials. This is a much-needed resource to optimize data quality in clinical trials and to support a necessary level of standardization using this form of data capture.

Background There is interest in participants using their own smartphones or tablets (“bring your own device”; BYOD) to complete patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in clinical studies. Our study aimed to qualitatively evaluate participants’ experience using a provisioned device (PD) versus their own smartphone (BYOD) for this purpose. Methods Participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were recruited for this observational, cross-over study and completed PRO measures daily on one device type for 15 days, then switched to the other device type to complete the same measures for another 15 days. After each 15-day period, semi-structured interviews were conducted about their experience with the device. Results Of 64 participants enrolled, the final qualitative analysis populations comprised those who participated in an interview without protocol violations. Thus, the qualitative longitudinal population (LP) included n = 57 (89%), while the qualitative cross-sectional population (CSP) included n = 60 (94%). CSP participants found both device types easy to use. Twenty CSP participants (33%) reported missing data entry on at least one day when using PD, and 24 (40%) reported missing at least one day when using BYOD. In the LP, preference for one of the device types was somewhat evenly split; 45.6% (n = 26) preferred PD and 50.9% (n = 29) preferred BYOD. The most common reason for preferring PD was that it was “dedicated” to the study; the “convenience” of carrying a single device was the main reason for preferring BYOD. Conclusion The findings from the interviews demonstrated few differences in participants’ experience completing PRO measures on a PD versus BYOD. Our study supports the use of BYOD as a potential addition to PD for collecting PRO data and contributes evidence that BYOD may be employed to collect PRO data in demographically diverse patient populations.

Purpose The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2009 guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures describes how the Agency evaluates the psychometric properties of measures intended to support medical product labeling claims. An important psychometric property is test–retest reliability. The guidance lists intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the assessment time period as key considerations for test–retest reliability evaluations. However, the guidance does not provide recommendations regarding ICC computation, nor is there consensus within the measurement literature regarding the most appropriate ICC formula for test–retest reliability assessment. This absence of consensus emerged as an issue within Critical Path Institute’s PRO Consortium. The purpose of this project was to generate thoughtful and informed recommendations regarding the most appropriate ICC formula for assessing a PRO measure’s test–retest reliability. Methods Literature was reviewed and a preferred ICC formula was proposed. Feedback on the chosen formula was solicited from psychometricians, biostatisticians, regulators, and other scientists who have collaborated on PRO Consortium initiatives. Results and conclusions Feedback was carefully considered and, after further deliberation, the proposed ICC formula was confirmed. In conclusion, to assess test–retest reliability for PRO measures, the two-way mixed-effect analysis of variance model with interaction for the absolute agreement between single scores is recommended.

Objective To quantitatively compare equivalence and compliance of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collected via provisioned device (PD) versus bring your own device (BYOD). Methods Participants with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) completed the EXAcerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool (EXACT ® ) daily and COPD Assessment Test™ (CAT) and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS) of COPD weekly on either PD or BYOD for 15 days, then switched device types for 15 days. EXACT was scored using the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS ® : COPD) algorithm and equivalence assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) adjusting for cross-over sequence, period, and time. Two one-sided tests (TOSTs) used ICC adjusted means with 10%, 20%, and 40% of total score tested as equivalence margins. Compliance and comfort with technology were assessed. Equivalence across 3 device screen sizes was assessed following the second completion period. Results Participants (N = 64) reported high comfort with technology, with 79.7% reporting being “quite a bit” or “very” comfortable. Weekly compliance was high (BYOD = 89.7–100%; PD = 76.9–100%). CAT and E-RS: COPD scores correlated well with PGIS ( r  > 0.50) and demonstrated equivalence between PD and BYOD completion (ICC = 0.863–0.908). TOST equivalence was achieved within 10% of the total score ( p  > 0.05). PRO measure scores were equivalent across 3 different screen sizes (ICC = 0.972–0.989). Conclusions Measure completion was high and scores equivalent between PD and BYOD, supporting use of BYOD in addition to PD for collecting PRO data in COPD studies and in demographically diverse patient populations. Highlights Historically, provisioned handheld devices [PD] have been provided to participants to enter patient-reported outcome (PRO) data during a clinical trial. Allowing participants to report data using their own smartphone or other internet-connected device (known as ‘bring your own device’ [BYOD]) is of growing interest. Measure completion was high for both device types when assessing daily and weekly compliance. Scores were found to be equivalent for both the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD and COPD Assessment Test™ between PD and BYOD using 2 different methods. This study supports use of BYOD in addition to PD for collecting PRO data in COPD studies and contributes evidence that BYOD may be successfully employed in demographically diverse patient populations.

Background Pediatric asthma has been identified by regulators, clinicians, clinical trial sponsors, and caregivers as an area in need of novel fit-for-purpose clinical outcome assessments (COAs) developed in accordance with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) regulatory guidance for evaluating clinical benefit in treatment trials. To address this gap, the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium’s Pediatric Asthma Working Group has continued development of 2 COAs to assess asthma signs and symptoms in pediatric asthma clinical trials to support efficacy endpoints: a PRO measure, the Pediatric Asthma Diary—Child ( PAD-C ) for children 8–11 years old (y.o.) and an observer-reported outcome measure, the Pediatric Asthma Diary-Observer ( PAD—O) for caregivers of children 4–11 y.o. This qualitative research aimed to generate evidence regarding the content validity of the PAD-C and PAD-O . Methods Semi-structured combined concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were conducted with a diverse sample of U.S. participants (15 children 8–11 y.o. and 30 caregivers of children 4–11 y.o.). All children had clinician-diagnosed mild to severe asthma. Interviews explored the experience of pediatric asthma and assessed the understanding and relevance of both measures. Interviews were conducted across 3 iterative rounds to allow for modifications. Results Concept elicitation findings demonstrated that the core sign/symptom and impact concepts assessed in the PAD-C (cough, hard to breathe, out of breath, wheezing, chest tightness, and nighttime awakenings/symptoms) and PAD-O (cough, difficulty breathing, short of breath, wheezing, and nighttime awakenings/signs) correspond to those most frequently reported by participants; concept saturation was achieved. All PAD-C and PAD-O instructions and core items were well understood and considered relevant by most participants. Feedback from participants, the Pediatric Asthma Working Group, advisory panel, and FDA supported modifications to the measures, including addition of 1 new item to both measures and removal of 1 caregiver item. Conclusions Findings provide strong support for the content validity of both measures. The cross-sectional measurement properties of both measures and their user experience and feasibility in electronic format will be assessed in a future quantitative pilot study with qualitative exit interviews, intended to support the reliability, construct validity, final content, and, ultimately, FDA qualification of the measures. Plain English summary Pediatric asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in children. However, there are problems of underdiagnosis, poor disease management, and undertreatment for many pediatric asthma patients, pressuring healthcare systems worldwide. Evaluating asthma symptoms is an important part of the development of treatments for pediatric asthma. However, there are few clinical outcome assessments (COAs) developed in line with regulatory guidance to directly assess symptom severity and evaluate the benefit of new treatments in children with asthma. In this study, we continued the development of the Pediatric Asthma Diary—Child (PAD-C) and the Pediatric Asthma Diary—Observer (PAD-O) , according to regulatory guidance, to assess asthma signs and symptoms in children 4 through 11 years old and address this unmet need. The study aimed to explore the experience of pediatric asthma and assess how well-understood and relevant the measures are. Three rounds of qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 children 8 through 11 years old and 30 caregivers of children 4 through 11 years old with asthma. Results show that both measures are well-understood and assess the relevant and important aspects of pediatric asthma reported by children and caregivers. Findings provide evidence supporting the PAD-C and PAD-O as measures of symptom severity and their future use in pediatric asthma treatment trials. Further research is underway to evaluate their measurement properties and assess the user experience and feasibility of electronic completion, to ultimately support the PAD-C and PAD-O in an ongoing COA qualification process by the United States Food and Drug Administration.