Systematic review of the use of translated patient-reported outcome measures in cancer trials.
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), Ethnicity, Recruitment, Cross-cultural translation, Clinical trials, Trial protocols, Primary outcomes, Secondary outcomes
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Apr 2021
26 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
17
07
2020
accepted:
08
04
2021
entrez:
27
4
2021
pubmed:
28
4
2021
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of interventions. Inclusion of participants from different ethnic backgrounds is essential for generalisability of cancer trial results. PRO data collection should include appropriately translated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to minimise missing data and sample attrition. Protocols and/or publications from cancer clinical trials using a PRO endpoint and registered on the National Institute for Health Research Portfolio were systematically reviewed for information on recruitment, inclusion of ethnicity data, and use of appropriately translated PROMs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders to explore barriers and facilitators for optimal PRO trial design, diverse recruitment and reporting, and use of appropriately translated PROMs. Eighty-four trials met the inclusion criteria, only 14 (17%) (n = 4754) reported ethnic group data, and ethnic group recruitment was low, 611 (13%). Although 8 (57%) studies were multi-centred and multi-national, none reported using translated PROMs, although available for 7 (88%) of the studies. Interviews with 44 international stakeholders identified a number of perceived barriers to ethnically diverse recruitment including diverse participant engagement, relevance of ethnicity to research question, prominence of PROs, and need to minimise investigator burden. Stakeholders had differing opinions on the use of translated PROMs, the impact of trial designs, and recruitment strategies on diverse recruitment. Facilitators of inclusive research were described and examples of good practice identified. Greater transparency is required when PROs are used as primary or secondary outcomes in clinical trials. Protocols and publications should demonstrate that recruitment was accessible to diverse populations and facilitated by trial design, recruitment strategies, and appropriate PROM usage. The use of translated PROMs should be made explicit when used in cancer clinical trials.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of interventions. Inclusion of participants from different ethnic backgrounds is essential for generalisability of cancer trial results. PRO data collection should include appropriately translated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to minimise missing data and sample attrition.
METHODS
METHODS
Protocols and/or publications from cancer clinical trials using a PRO endpoint and registered on the National Institute for Health Research Portfolio were systematically reviewed for information on recruitment, inclusion of ethnicity data, and use of appropriately translated PROMs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders to explore barriers and facilitators for optimal PRO trial design, diverse recruitment and reporting, and use of appropriately translated PROMs.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eighty-four trials met the inclusion criteria, only 14 (17%) (n = 4754) reported ethnic group data, and ethnic group recruitment was low, 611 (13%). Although 8 (57%) studies were multi-centred and multi-national, none reported using translated PROMs, although available for 7 (88%) of the studies. Interviews with 44 international stakeholders identified a number of perceived barriers to ethnically diverse recruitment including diverse participant engagement, relevance of ethnicity to research question, prominence of PROs, and need to minimise investigator burden. Stakeholders had differing opinions on the use of translated PROMs, the impact of trial designs, and recruitment strategies on diverse recruitment. Facilitators of inclusive research were described and examples of good practice identified.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Greater transparency is required when PROs are used as primary or secondary outcomes in clinical trials. Protocols and publications should demonstrate that recruitment was accessible to diverse populations and facilitated by trial design, recruitment strategies, and appropriate PROM usage. The use of translated PROMs should be made explicit when used in cancer clinical trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33902699
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05255-z
pii: 10.1186/s13063-021-05255-z
pmc: PMC8074490
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
306Subventions
Organisme : Macmillan Cancer Support
ID : 5592105
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Nov 10;34(32):3898-3905
pubmed: 27621408
Palliat Support Care. 2011 Mar;9(1):3-13
pubmed: 21352613
Value Health. 2005 Mar-Apr;8(2):94-104
pubmed: 15804318
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jan 03;14:3
pubmed: 24387663
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Nov;7(11):903-9
pubmed: 17081915
Value Health. 2011 Dec;14(8):978-88
pubmed: 22152166
Lancet. 2016 Apr 16;387(10028):1629-37
pubmed: 26874885
Med Care. 2012 Dec;50(12):1060-70
pubmed: 22922434
Clin Trials. 2019 Jun;16(3):322-326
pubmed: 30880446
JAMA. 2013 Feb 27;309(8):814-22
pubmed: 23443445
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018 Apr 23;13(1):61
pubmed: 29688860
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014 Jan;47(1):12-25
pubmed: 23602325
JAMA. 2018 Feb 6;319(5):483-494
pubmed: 29411037
Lancet. 2016 Mar 5;387(10022):968-977
pubmed: 26703889
Med Care. 2004 Jan;42(1 Suppl):I37-48
pubmed: 14707754
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 3;8(2):e017282
pubmed: 29431123
BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 21;6(9):e012863
pubmed: 27655263
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Nov 1;111(11):1170-1178
pubmed: 30959516
Health Serv Insights. 2013 Aug 04;6:61-8
pubmed: 25114561
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Mar 20;34(9):953-62
pubmed: 26811519
BJOG. 2017 Jan;124(1):150-160
pubmed: 27062690
Ann Oncol. 2016 Jan;27(1):106-13
pubmed: 26504153
Acta Oncol. 2019 May;58(5):596-602
pubmed: 30702003
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Mar;17(3):378-388
pubmed: 26794930
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Oct;9(38):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-152
pubmed: 16181564
Value Health. 2011 Dec;14(8):967-77
pubmed: 22152165
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016 May;25(3):402-18
pubmed: 26215187
Value Health. 2009 Jun;12(4):430-40
pubmed: 19138309
BMJ. 2017 Nov 23;359:j5085
pubmed: 29170161
Sarcoma. 2017;2017:2372135
pubmed: 28512389
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Jul 08;106(7):
pubmed: 25006191
Qual Life Res. 2017 Jun;26(6):1427-1437
pubmed: 28168602
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Dec 20;30(36):4470-6
pubmed: 23109700
N Engl J Med. 2012 Nov 8;367(19):1783-91
pubmed: 23020162
Cancer. 2014 Mar 1;120(5):642-51
pubmed: 24222194
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jan;16(1):e43-52
pubmed: 25638556
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 15;9(10):e110216
pubmed: 25333995
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 10;32(14):1412-8
pubmed: 24687826
Chest. 2009 Oct;136(4):1175-1177
pubmed: 19809062