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)
出版年份 2016 全文链接
标题
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)
作者
关键词
PRO-CTCAE, Patient-Reported Outcomes, Symptoms, Adverse Events, Mode of Administration, Interactive Voice Response System
出版物
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages -
出版商
Springer Nature
发表日期
2016-02-19
DOI
10.1186/s12955-016-0426-6
参考文献
相关参考文献
注意:仅列出部分参考文献,下载原文获取全部文献信息。- Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013
- (2015) Willie Muehlhausen et al. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
- Evaluation of mode equivalence of the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument, LASA Quality of Life, and Subjective Significance Questionnaire items administered by Web, interactive voice response system (IVRS), and paper
- (2015) Antonia V. Bennett et al. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
- Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)
- (2015) Amylou C. Dueck et al. JAMA Oncology
- Recommended Patient-Reported Core Set of Symptoms to Measure in Adult Cancer Treatment Trials
- (2014) B. B. Reeve et al. JNCI-Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Development of the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)
- (2014) E. Basch et al. JNCI-Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- PRO Data Collection in Clinical Trials Using Mixed Modes: Report of the ISPOR PRO Mixed Modes Good Research Practices Task Force
- (2014) Sonya Eremenco et al. VALUE IN HEALTH
- Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity
- (2013) Jakob B. Bjorner et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30
- (2013) J. Jason Lundy et al. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
- A literature synthesis of symptom prevalence and severity in persons receiving active cancer treatment
- (2013) Carolyn Miller Reilly et al. SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
- Comparison Between Patient-Reported and Clinician-Observed Symptoms in Oncology
- (2012) Canhua Xiao et al. CANCER NURSING
- Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians
- (2011) Thomas M. Atkinson et al. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
- Measurement Equivalence of Interactive Voice Response and Paper Versions of the EQ-5D in a Cancer Patient Sample
- (2011) J. Jason Lundy et al. VALUE IN HEALTH
- Stakeholder perspectives on implementing the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)
- (2011) Deborah Watkins Bruner et al. Translational Behavioral Medicine
- Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics
- (2010) Geoff Norman ADVANCES IN HEALTH SCIENCES EDUCATION
- Recommendations on Evidence Needed to Support Measurement Equivalence between Electronic and Paper-Based Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report
- (2008) Stephen Joel Coons et al. VALUE IN HEALTH
- Equivalence of Electronic and Paper-and-Pencil Administration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Meta-Analytic Review
- (2007) Chad J. Gwaltney et al. VALUE IN HEALTH
Discover Peeref hubs
Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.
Join a conversationAsk a Question. Answer a Question.
Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.
Get Started