Display options
Cite
Kyte D, Ives J, Draper H, et al. Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: a potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and trialists. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e76625doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076625.
Kyte, D., Ives, J., Draper, H., Keeley, T., & Calvert, M. (2013). Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: a potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and trialists. PloS one, 8(10), e76625. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076625
Kyte, Derek, et al. "Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: a potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and trialists." PloS one vol. 8,10 (2013): e76625. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076625
Kyte D, Ives J, Draper H, Keeley T, Calvert M. Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: a potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and trialists. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 04;8(10):e76625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076625. eCollection 2013. PMID: 24124580; PMCID: PMC3790726.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

PLoS One. 2013 Oct 04;8(10):e76625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076625. eCollection 2013.

Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: a potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and trialists.

PloS one

Derek Kyte, Jonathan Ives, Heather Draper, Thomas Keeley, Melanie Calvert

Affiliations

  1. Primary Care and Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

PMID: 24124580 PMCID: PMC3790726 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076625

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life (HRQL) are increasingly used to evaluate treatment effectiveness in clinical trials, are valued by patients, and may inform important decisions in the clinical setting. It is of concern, therefore, that preliminary evidence, gained from group discussions at UK-wide Medical Research Council (MRC) quality of life training days, suggests there are inconsistent standards of HRQL data collection in trials and appropriate training and education is often lacking. Our objective was to investigate these reports, to determine if they represented isolated experiences, or were indicative of a potentially wider problem.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook a qualitative study, conducting 26 semi-structured interviews with research nurses, data managers, trial coordinators and research facilitators involved in the collection and entry of HRQL data in clinical trials, across one primary care NHS trust, two secondary care NHS trusts and two clinical trials units in the UK. We used conventional content analysis to analyze and interpret our data. Our study participants reported (1) inconsistent standards in HRQL measurement, both between, and within, trials, which appeared to risk the introduction of bias; (2), difficulties in dealing with HRQL data that raised concern for the well-being of the trial participant, which in some instances led to the delivery of non-protocol driven co-interventions, (3), a frequent lack of HRQL protocol content and appropriate training and education of trial staff, and (4) that HRQL data collection could be associated with emotional and/or ethical burden.

CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest there are inconsistencies in the standards of HRQL data collection in some trials resulting from a general lack of HRQL-specific protocol content, training and education. These inconsistencies could lead to biased HRQL trial results. Future research should aim to develop HRQL guidelines and training programmes aimed at supporting researchers to carry out high quality data collection.

References

  1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 Apr 5;81(7):485-95 - PubMed
  2. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(8):887-900 - PubMed
  3. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1995 Mar;39(3):217-22 - PubMed
  4. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60684 - PubMed
  5. Cancer. 2012 Jan 15;118(2):461-8 - PubMed
  6. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):200-7 - PubMed
  7. Nurs Ethics. 1995 Sep;2(3):223-32 - PubMed
  8. Stat Med. 1998 Mar 15-Apr 15;17(5-7):667-77 - PubMed
  9. Eur J Cancer. 1997 Jan;33(1):20-8 - PubMed
  10. Nurse Res. 2010;18(1):15-25 - PubMed
  11. Am J Cardiol. 2012 Nov 15;110(10):1546-50 - PubMed
  12. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2004 Feb;29(1):85-94 - PubMed
  13. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2003 Jan-Feb;30(1):107-14 - PubMed
  14. BMJ. 2001 May 26;322(7297):1297-300 - PubMed
  15. Eur J Cancer. 1998 Jan;34(1):49-57 - PubMed
  16. Clin Trials. 2011 Aug;8(4):440-2 - PubMed
  17. BMJ. 2013 Jan 08;346:e7586 - PubMed
  18. Stat Med. 1998 Mar 15-Apr 15;17(5-7):561-9 - PubMed
  19. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2003 Jul;13(3):235-47 - PubMed
  20. BMJ. 1992 Nov 7;305(6862):1145-8 - PubMed
  21. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006 Oct 11;4:79 - PubMed
  22. Value Health. 1999 Mar-Apr;2(2):113-27 - PubMed
  23. Allergy. 2010 Mar;65(3):290-5 - PubMed
  24. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Aug 7;60(6):548-58 - PubMed
  25. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2003 Dec;28(6):513-21 - PubMed
  26. Qual Life Res. 2003 Jun;12(4):395-404 - PubMed
  27. Can J Nurs Res. 2002 Jun;34(1):131-42 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support