Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Abstract

BackgroundPRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system [IVRS], and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system.MethodsParticipants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0–4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed.Results103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55–0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62–0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60–0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ≥0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians [ranges] for tablet vs. IVRS = −0.04 [−0.16–0.22]; tablet vs paper = −0.02 [−0.11–0.14]; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 [−0.07–0.19]), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/−0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported “no problems” responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper.ConclusionsMode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration.Trial registrationNCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02158637

Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer

“…Bennett and colleagues (2016) demonstrated similar outcomes and patient acceptability for various administration modes of the National Cancer Institute’s Patient Reported Outcomes for adverse events. One study among testicular cancer survivors noted socio-demographic differences in participants completing web- vs. paper-based modes (Smith, King, Butow, & Olver, 2011).…”

Satisfactory short‐term outcome after anlotinib and docetaxel chemotherapy in tongue cancer with N3 cervical lymph node metastasis: A case report

“…The efficacy was evaluated as partial response (PR). No adverse events were observed during treatment (according to the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0) …”

An investigation of completion times on the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain – revised (SOAPP-R)

“…Response times have been used in a variety of research settings, including (among other applications) the measurement of the accessibility of attitudes,25–30 the identification of poor, difficult, or emotionally arousing items,31–33 the evaluation of the feasibility of electronic assessment and/or the comparison of different modes of questionnaire administration,34–42 and the prediction of inconsistencies between voting intentions and voting behavior 43. Indeed, it has been established in the psychological literature for decades that the speed of a response may be predictive of behavior 26,27,43,44.…”