ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the equivalence between electronic and paper administration of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in studies conducted subsequent to those included in Gwaltney et al’s 2008 review.MethodsA systematic literature review of PROM equivalence studies conducted between 2007 and 2013 identified 1,997 records from which 72 studies met pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. PRO data from each study were extracted, in terms of both correlation coefficients (ICCs, Spearman and Pearson correlations, Kappa statistics) and mean differences (standardized by the standard deviation, SD, and the response scale range). Pooled estimates of correlation and mean difference were estimated. The modifying effects of mode of administration, year of publication, study design, time interval between administrations, mean age of participants and publication type were examined.ResultsFour hundred thirty-five individual correlations were extracted, these correlations being highly variable (I2 = 93.8) but showing generally good equivalence, with ICCs ranging from 0.65 to 0.99 and the pooled correlation coefficient being 0.88 (95 % CI 0.87 to 0.88). Standardised mean differences for 307 studies were small and less variable (I2 = 33.5) with a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.037 (95 % CI 0.031 to 0.042). Average administration mode/platform-specific correlations from 56 studies (61 estimates) had a pooled estimate of 0.88 (95 % CI 0.86 to 0.90) and were still highly variable (I2 = 92.1). Similarly, average platform-specific ICCs from 39 studies (42 estimates) had a pooled estimate of 0.90 (95 % CI 0.88 to 0.92) with an I2 of 91.5. After excluding 20 studies with outlying correlation coefficients (≥3SD from the mean), the I2 was 54.4, with the equivalence still high, the overall pooled correlation coefficient being 0.88 (95 % CI 0.87 to 0.88). Agreement was found to be greater in more recent studies (p < 0.001), in randomized studies compared with non-randomised studies (p < 0.001), in studies with a shorter interval (<1 day) (p < 0.001), and in respondents of mean age 28 to 55 compared with those either younger or older (p < 0.001). In terms of mode/platform, paper vs Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) comparisons had the lowest pooled agreement and paper vs tablet/touch screen the highest (p < 0.001).ConclusionThe present study supports the conclusion of Gwaltney’s previous meta-analysis showing that PROMs administered on paper are quantitatively comparable with measures administered on an electronic device. It also confirms the ISPOR Taskforce´s conclusion that quantitative equivalence studies are not required for migrations with minor change only. This finding should be reassuring to investigators, regulators and sponsors using questionnaires on electronic devicesafter migration using best practices. Although there is data indicating that migrations with moderate changes produce equivalent instrument versions, hence do not require quantitative equivalence studi...

The increasing miniaturization and affordability of sensors and circuitry has led to the current level of innovation in the area of wearable and microsensor solutions for health monitoring. This facilitates the development of solutions that can be used to measure complex health outcomes in nonspecialist and remote settings. In this article, we review a number of innovations related to brain monitoring including portable and wearable solutions to directly measure brain electrical activity, and solutions measuring aspects related to brain function such as sleep patterns, gait, cognition, voice acoustics, and gaze analysis. Despite the need for more scientific validation work, we conclude that there is enough understanding of how to implement these approaches as exploratory tools that may provide additional valuable insights due to the rich and frequent data they produce, to justify their inclusion in clinical study protocols.

Background:Sedentary behaviour (SB) is an important risk factor for a number of chronic diseases. Although gaps remain in our knowledge of the elements of SB most associated with reduced health outcomes, measuring SB is important, especially in less active patient populations where treatment-related changes may be seen first in changes in SB.Methods:We review current published work in the measurement of SB to make recommendations for SB measurement in clinical studies.Results:To help move our understanding of the area forward, we propose a set of derived measures of SB that can be easily understood and interpreted.Conclusion:Although there is more work required to determine and validate the most clinically relevant and sensitive measures of SB, there is enough understanding of how to measure SB to enable its inclusion in study protocols.

This study provides strong evidence supporting the use of BYOD for PROM collection in terms of the conservation of instrument measurement equivalence across the most widely used response scale types, and high patient acceptance of the approach.

With the benefit of accumulating evidence, it is possible to relax the need to routinely conduct cognitive interview and usability studies when implementing minor changes during instrument migration. Application of design best practice and selecting vendor solutions with good user interface and user experience properties that have been assessed in a representative group may enable many instrument migrations to be accepted without formal validation studies by instead conducting a structured expert screen review.