IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v13y2022i1d10.1038_s41467-022-33826-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection

Author

Listed:
  • Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi

    (University of Birmingham
    University of Birmingham
    NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
    University of Birmingham)

  • Jessica Roydhouse

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Samantha Cruz Rivera

    (University of Birmingham
    Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation
    University of Birmingham)

  • Paul Kamudoni

    (Healthcare Business of Merck KGaA)

  • Peter Schache

    (LAIFE Reply GmbH)

  • Roger Wilson

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Richard Stephens

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Melanie Calvert

    (University of Birmingham
    University of Birmingham
    NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
    University of Birmingham)

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from a patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The collection of PROs in routine practice can facilitate monitoring of patient symptoms; identification of unmet needs; prioritisation and/or tailoring of treatment to the needs of individual patients and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. However, respondent burden needs to be carefully considered and addressed to avoid high rates of missing data and poor reporting of PRO results, which may lead to poor quality data for regulatory decision making and/or clinical care.

Suggested Citation

  • Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi & Jessica Roydhouse & Samantha Cruz Rivera & Paul Kamudoni & Peter Schache & Roger Wilson & Richard Stephens & Melanie Calvert, 2022. "Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:13:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-022-33826-4
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-33826-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33826-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-022-33826-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kelly M. Dumais & Nadeeka Dias & Laura Khurana & Sarah Tressel Gary & Brooke Witherspoon & Christopher J. Evans & Susan M. Dallabrida, 2019. "Preferences for Use and Design of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(6), pages 621-629, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jim Wiegel & Bart Seppen & Marike van der Leeden & Martin van der Esch & Ralph de Vries & Wouter Bos, 2021. "Adherence to Telemonitoring by Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients with Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-13, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:13:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-022-33826-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.