Best Practices for the Electronic Implementation and Migration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Florence D Mowlem¹, Celeste A Elash², Kelly M Dumais³, Estelle Haenel⁴, Paul O'Donohoe⁵, Jennifer Olt⁶, Alexandra V Kalpadakis-Smith⁶, Ben James⁷, Grazia Balestrieri⁸, Kayci Becker⁸, Melissa C Newara⁹, Scottie Kern¹⁰,

¹Medable Inc, Palo Alto, CA, USA. Electronic address: florence.mowlem@obviohealth.com.

²YPrime, Malvern, PA, USA.

³Clario, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

⁴Kayentis S.A.S., Meylan, France.

⁵Medidata Solutions, London, England, UK.

⁶Signant Health, London, England, UK.

⁷uMotif, London, England, UK.

⁸Science 37, Durham, NC, USA.

⁹Medrio, San Francisco, CA, USA.

¹⁰Critical Path Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA.

PubMed DOI

Abstract

While the use of electronic methods to collect patient-reported outcome data in clinical trials continues to increase, it remains the case that many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have originally been developed and validated on paper. Careful consideration during the move from paper PROMs to electronic format is required to preserve the integrity of the measure and ensure a "faithful mi…

Create a free account to keep reading

Free members get 10 full research views every month across publications, clinical trials, FDA clearances, adverse events, and NIH grants. No credit card required.

Create Free Account Sign In

Want unlimited research access? See Pro plans

Data Accuracy Notice: Research intelligence on Health AI Central is aggregated from public sources (PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, NIH, CMS, and others) and refreshed nightly. Classifications and derived metrics are produced by automated methods described in our Methodology. We recommend verifying critical data points against the primary sources before making decisions.