Using this framework, we believe there is enough current understanding to promote the appropriate use of wearables in study protocols. We hope this will provide a basis for discussion among clinical trial stakeholders and catalyze the development of more robust regulatory guidance.

Field-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments, including measures of signs, symptoms, and events that are administered outside of the research clinic, can be critical in evaluating the efficacy and safety of new medical treatments. Collection of this type of data commonly involves providing subjects with stand-alone electronic devices, such as smartphones, that they can use to respond to assessments in their home or work environment. Although this approach has proven useful, it is also limited in several ways: For example, provisioning stand-alone devices can be costly for sponsors, and requiring subjects to carry a device that is exclusively dedicated to the study can be burdensome. The "Bring Your Own Device" (BYOD) approach, in which subjects use their own smartphone or Internet-enabled device to complete field-based PRO assessments, addresses many of these concerns. However, the BYOD model has its own limitations that should be considered. In this article, representatives of the ePRO Consortium review operational, privacy/security, and scientific/regulatory considerations regarding BYOD. We hope that this review will allow researchers to make informed decisions when choosing methods to collect field-based PRO data in future clinical trials. Additionally, we hope that the discussion in this article will establish a research agenda for further examination of BYOD approaches.

For a number of compelling scientific, operational, and regulatory reasons, the use of electronic data capture is becoming the preferred means of collecting clinical outcome assessment (eg, patient-reported outcome [PRO]) data in clinical trials. Electronic PRO (ePRO) data collection leverages screen-based technologies (eg, handheld devices, tablet computers, and web-based systems) and telephone-based (eg, interactive voice response) systems. Data collection is routinely either site based (ie, clinical study site) or field based (eg, subject's home, school, or workplace). While tablet computers are often used for site-based PRO data collection, handheld devices have become the mainstay for ePRO data capture in field-based settings. The data collection devices are usually provisioned to the sites or subjects by an ePRO system provider contracted by the clinical trial sponsor. With site-based data collection, study staff are responsible for ensuring subject compliance with the protocol-driven data collection procedures, whereas with field-based data collection, the subject is responsible for compliance with the data entry requirements and sites are accountable for remotely monitoring the data for compliance. In addition to site and subject compliance issues, technology-related factors must be anticipated in order to adhere to the electronic PRO data collection plan. The objective of this paper is to describe study site-, subject-, and technology-related factors that may lead to deviations from the planned electronic collection of PRO data (eg, defaulting to paper-based data collection) and to provide recommendations aimed at preventing potential problems or quickly resolving problems once they occur.

Background Visual analogue scales (VASs) are used in a variety of patient-, observer- and clinician-reported outcome measures. While typically included in measures originally developed for pen-and-paper completion, a greater number of clinical trials currently use electronic approaches to their collection. This leads researchers to question whether the measurement properties of the scale have been conserved during the migration to an electronic format, particularly because electronic formats often use a different scale length than the 100 mm paper standard. Methods We performed a review of published studies investigating the measurement comparability of paper and electronic formats of the VAS. Results Our literature search yielded 26 studies published between 1997 and 2018 that reported comparison of paper and electronic formats using the VAS. After excluding 2 publications, 23 of the remaining 24 studies included in this review reported electronic formats of the VAS (eVAS) and paper formats (pVAS) to be equivalent. A further study concluded that eVAS and pVAS were both acceptable but should not be interchanged. eVAS length varied from 21 to 200 mm, indicating that 100 mm length is not a requirement. Conclusions The literature supports the hypothesis that eVAS and pVAS provide comparable results regardless of the VAS length. When implementing a VAS on a screen-based electronic mode, we recommend following industry best practices for faithful migration to minimise the likelihood of non-comparability with pVAS.

Implementing clinical outcome assessments electronically in clinical studies requires the sponsor and electronic clinical outcome assessment (eCOA) provider to work closely together to implement study-specific requirements and ensure consensus-defined best practices are followed. One of the most important steps is for sponsors to conduct user acceptance testing (UAT) using an eCOA system developed by the eCOA provider. UAT provides the clinical study team including sponsor or designee an opportunity to evaluate actual software performance and ensure that the sponsor’s intended requirements were communicated clearly and accurately translated into the system design, and that the system conforms to a sponsor-approved requirements document based on the study protocol. The components of an eCOA system, such as the study-specific application, customization features, study portal, and custom data transfers should be tested during UAT. While the provider will perform their own system validation, the sponsor or designee should also perform their due diligence by conducting UAT. A clear UAT plan including the necessary documentation may be requested by regulatory authorities depending on the country. This paper provides the electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) Consortium’s and patient-reported outcome (PRO) Consortium’s best practice recommendations for clinical study sponsors or their designee for conducting UAT with support from eCOA providers to ensure data quality and enhance operational efficiency of the eCOA system. Following these best practice recommendations and completing UAT in its entirety will support a high quality eCOA system and ensure more reliable and complete data are collected, which are essential to the success of the study.