Antonia V. Bennett|Amylou C. Dueck|Sandra A. Mitchell|Tito R. Mendoza|Bryce B. Reeve|Thomas M. Atkinson|Kathleen M. Castro|Andrea Denicoff|Lauren J. Rogak|Jay K. Harness|James D. Bearden|Donna Bryant|Robert D. Siegel|Deborah Schrag|Ethan Basch
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)
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|Mayo Clinic in Arizona|National Cancer Institute|The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center|National Cancer Institute|National Cancer Institute|Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center|St. Joseph Hospital|Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System|Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center|Hartford Hospital|Dana-Farber Cancer Institute|Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center|University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
proctcae library items measure cancer treatmentrelated symptomatic adverse events nci contracts hhsn261201000043c hhsn 261201000063c objective study examine equivalence acceptability three data collection modes webenabled touchscreen tablet computer interactive voice response system ivrs paper available within us national cancer institute nci patientreported outcomes version common terminology criteria adverse events proctcae measurement systemparticipants n 112 median age 565 24 high school less receiving treatment cancer seven us sites completed 28 proctcae items scoring range 04 three modes order randomized single study visit subjects completed one page approx 15 items eortc qlqc30 mode distractor item scores mode compared using intraclass correlation coefficients icc differences scores within 3mode crossover design evaluated mixedeffects models difficulties mode experienced participants also assessed103 92 completed questionnaires three modes median icc comparing tablet vs ivrs 078 range 055090 tablet vs paper 081 062096 ivrs vs paper 078 060091 89 iccs 070 itemlevel mean differences mode small medians ranges tablet vs ivrs 004 016022 tablet vs paper 002 011014 ivrs vs paper 002 007019 5781 70 items bootstrapped 95 ci around effect sizes within 020 median time complete questionnaire tablet 34 min ivrs 58 paper 40 proportion participants mode reported problems responding questionnaire 86 tablet 72 ivrs 98 papermode equivalence items moderate high comparable testretest reliability median icc 080 mode acceptable majority respondents although study powered detect moderate larger discrepancies modes observed iccs small mean differences modes provide evidence support study designs responsive patient investigator preference mode administration justify comparison results pooled analyses across studies employ different proctcae modes administrationnct clinicaltrialsgov identifier nct02158637