Back

Improving Adherence to electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes: Study Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review and subsequent qualitative Interviews

Mukowski, R.; Otto, L.; Rogge, A.

2024-06-13 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2024.06.13.24308883 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundElectronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are frequently used to include the patients perspective in clinical trials and routine clinical care. In contrast to data collected in clinical trials, PRO response rates tend to decrease drastically overtime in routine clinical care, leading to missing data and questionable validity of results reported. This study aims to investigate factors influencing patient adherence to digitally collected PROs. MethodThe study comprises of three steps: (1) a systematic literature review (SLR) focusing on factors increasing PRO response rates, (2) focus group interviews with patients to develop criteria on how to increase response rates for real-world evidence (RWE), and subsequently, (3) an anonymous online survey to evaluate developed criteria. The SLR will follow the PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria for the review encompass studies focusing exclusively on patients or people recruited via medical personnel. The literature review will include studies from various settings, encompassing publications in German or English language published within the past 10 years (2014-2024). Participants for the focus group interviews (n = 6-8/group) will be recruited via patient advisory boards or groups/organisations. The findings of the SLR and the focus group form the basis for the anonymous online survey to include more patients. OutlookThe results of the study can be incorporated into the development and implementation of digital collection methods for PROs, with the aim of improving adherence to PROs and thus robustness of RWE data.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.