An investigation of methods to improve recall for the patient-reported outcome measurement in COPD patients: a pilot randomised control trial and feasibility study protocol.
Patient-reported outcome measurement
Patient-reported outcomes
Recall bias
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
07
01
2019
accepted:
04
07
2019
entrez:
31
7
2019
pubmed:
31
7
2019
medline:
31
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are used to measure the effectiveness of interventions for management of chronic conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Many of these instruments require respondents to describe the change in their health status from baseline to a follow-up assessment and poor recall of previous health status often limits the usefulness and validity of these PRO measures. The use of technology has recently increased in PRO measurement. This study aims to mitigate the problems of poor recall by evaluating different strategies as a way to improve the validity of recall of health status among adults with COPD. A pilot randomised controlled trial of three strategies to improve patient recall will be tested in an acute care clinical environment. The first strategy is the use of tablet computer technology's audio-visual facility, the second strategy is the provision of base line PRO responses prior to patients completing their follow-up questionnaires and third is standard practice of completing a questionnaire independently of previous responses. The feasibility of conducting this study in a busy clinical environment will be ascertained using the NIHR criteria for assessing feasibility. There is variability in a person's ability to recall past events. With studies utilising patient-reported outcome measurement, it has become critically important to develop strategies and ways of supporting the patient to be more accurate recalling their health status. The adaptation of various technological features within mobile devices may provide an opportunity in clinical research studies to improve patient recall of their health status. ANZCTR12618001605280.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are used to measure the effectiveness of interventions for management of chronic conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Many of these instruments require respondents to describe the change in their health status from baseline to a follow-up assessment and poor recall of previous health status often limits the usefulness and validity of these PRO measures. The use of technology has recently increased in PRO measurement. This study aims to mitigate the problems of poor recall by evaluating different strategies as a way to improve the validity of recall of health status among adults with COPD.
METHODS
METHODS
A pilot randomised controlled trial of three strategies to improve patient recall will be tested in an acute care clinical environment. The first strategy is the use of tablet computer technology's audio-visual facility, the second strategy is the provision of base line PRO responses prior to patients completing their follow-up questionnaires and third is standard practice of completing a questionnaire independently of previous responses. The feasibility of conducting this study in a busy clinical environment will be ascertained using the NIHR criteria for assessing feasibility.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
There is variability in a person's ability to recall past events. With studies utilising patient-reported outcome measurement, it has become critically important to develop strategies and ways of supporting the patient to be more accurate recalling their health status. The adaptation of various technological features within mobile devices may provide an opportunity in clinical research studies to improve patient recall of their health status.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ANZCTR12618001605280.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31360536
doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0475-9
pii: 475
pmc: PMC6637538
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
92Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Psychol Rev. 2000 Apr;107(2):261-88
pubmed: 10789197
J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 May;54(5):482-7
pubmed: 11337211
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2002 Jan;17(1):57-67
pubmed: 14589753
Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
pubmed: 1593914
Respir Med. 1991 Sep;85 Suppl B:25-31; discussion 33-7
pubmed: 1759018
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
Ann Epidemiol. 2012 Oct;22(10):744-6
pubmed: 22863312
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014 Feb;46(2):211-8
pubmed: 23899895
Psychol Aging. 2013 Dec;28(4):902-9
pubmed: 23978011
BMC Pulm Med. 2016 May 10;16(1):70
pubmed: 27160582
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018 Jun 26;16(1):130
pubmed: 29940980
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Jun;14(6):1012-1020
pubmed: 30776447
BMJ Open. 2019 Jan 17;9(1):e024008
pubmed: 30782722
ESC Heart Fail. 2019 Jun;6(3):516-525
pubmed: 30868756
J Chronic Dis. 1979;32(1-2):51-63
pubmed: 447779
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70
pubmed: 6880820