4.4 Review

Systematic review of the use of translated patient-reported outcome measures in cancer trials

Journal

TRIALS
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05255-z

Keywords

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs); Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); Ethnicity; Recruitment; Cross-cultural translation; Clinical trials; Trial protocols; Primary outcomes; Secondary outcomes

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research, Clinical Research Network funding [RHJK20013]
  2. Macmillan Cancer Support [5592105]
  3. National Institute of Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Birmingham National Health Service Foundation Trust
  4. University of Birmingham
  5. Prostate Cancer UK
  6. Yorkshire Cancer Research
  7. Pfizer
  8. Breast Cancer NOW
  9. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer
  10. National Institute for Health Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre
  11. National Institute for Health Research Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre
  12. National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands at the University of Birmingham
  13. University Hospitals Birmingham National Health Service Foundation Trust
  14. Health Data Research United Kingdom
  15. Innovate United Kingdom (part of United Kingdom Research and Innovation)
  16. Health Foundation
  17. UCB Pharma
  18. GSK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential in clinical trials, but there is a lack of transparency in reporting diverse recruitment and use of translated PROMs in cancer trials. Stakeholders identified barriers and facilitators for inclusive research, with differing opinions on the use of translated PROMs and recruitment strategies.
BackgroundPatient-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.MethodsProtocols 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.ResultsEighty-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.ConclusionsGreater 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available