The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 621–629 | Cite as

Preferences for Use and Design of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

  • Kelly M. DumaisEmail author
  • Nadeeka Dias
  • Laura Khurana
  • Sarah Tressel Gary
  • Brooke Witherspoon
  • Christopher J. Evans
  • Susan M. Dallabrida
Original Research Article



Collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is critical to fully understand chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management and progression, as the impact on health-related quality of life is not well understood by objective measures alone. Electronic PROs (ePROs) are increasingly used because of their advantages over paper data collection, including elimination of transcription errors, increased accuracy and data quality, real-time data reporting, and increased compliance. The objective of this study was to characterize how patients with COPD prefer to use various types of technology to report disease symptoms, and their preferences for ePRO design and display.


The sample consisted of subjects with COPD (N = 103) who completed in-person surveys on their ePRO preferences.


The majority of subjects prefer to use a form of electronic media over paper to report their disease symptoms. Of these electronic methods, subjects most often prefer to use a smartphone provided by their physician. Subjects were also interested in ePRO features, such as knowing estimated PRO completion time at the outset, tracking their progress in real time as they complete a questionnaire, seeing the data that they report in order to track their health status, being encouraged to complete their diary if they fall behind by positive messaging, and being thanked for their completion of a daily diary.


Investigators should consider including these preferences when designing ePRO assessments. Incorporating patient preferences for ePRO design can ultimately help reduce patient burden and increase engagement, compliance, and improve data quality.



This work was supported by eResearch Technology (ERT). The authors would like to acknowledge the subjects who participated in the study.

Author Contributions

Author KMD analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. Authors ND, LK, and ST contributed to data analysis. Authors BW and CJE performed participant interviews and edited the manuscript. Author SMD contributed to study design and edited the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee (Copernicus Group IRB) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


This study was funded by eResearch Technology (ERT).

Conflict of Interest

Authors KMD, ND, LK, STG, and SMD are employees of eResearch Technology (ERT), which funded this research, and authors CE and BW are employees of Endpoint Outcomes, which performs services for ERT.

Supplementary material

40271_2019_376_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (704 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 703 kb)
40271_2019_376_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (199 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 198 kb)


  1. 1.
    Burden of COPD. In: World Health Organization: chronic respiratory diseases: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Accessed 15 May 2019.
  2. 2.
    Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. 2019. Accessed 15 May 2019.
  3. 3.
    Jones PW. Health status and the spiral of decline. COPD. 2009;6(1):59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gensheimer SG, Wu AW, Snyder CF, PRO-HER Users’ Guide Steering Group, PRO-HER Users’ Guide Working Group. Oh, the places we’ll go: patient-reported outcomes and electronic health records. Patient. 2018;11(6):591–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: use of the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire as a PRO assessment tool: guidance for industry. 2018. Accessed 15 May 2019.
  6. 6.
    Wolpin S, Nguyen HQ, Donesky-Cuenco D, Carrieri-Kohlman V, Doorenbos A. Effects of automated prompts for logging symptom and exercise data on mobile devices in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Comput Inform Nurs. 2011;29(2):75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leidy NK, Wilcox TK, Jones PW, Roberts L, Powers JH, Sethi S, et al. Standardizing measurement of COPD exacerbations. Reliability and validity of a patient-reported diary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(3):323–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shah SA, Velardo C, Gibson OJ, Rutter H, Farmer A, Tarassenko L. Personalized alerts for patients with COPD using pulse oximetry and symptom scores. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:3164–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kulich K, Keininger DL, Tiplady B, Banerji D. Symptoms and impact of COPD assessed by an electronic diary in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: psychometric results from the SHINE study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:79–94.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mazze RS, Shamoon H, Pasmantier R, Lucido D, Murphy J, Hartmann K, et al. Reliability of blood glucose monitoring by patients with diabetes mellitus. Am J Med. 1984;77(2):211–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. BMJ. 2002;324:1193–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Palermo TM, Valenzuela D, Stork PP. A randomized trial of electronic versus paper pain diaries in children: impact on compliance, accuracy, and acceptability. Pain. 2004;107(3):213–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dale O, Hagen KB. Despite technical problems personal digital assistants outperform pen and paper when collecting patient diary data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Given JE, O’Kane MJ, Bunting BP, Coates VE. Comparing patient-generated blood glucose diary records with meter memory in diabetes: a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2013;30(8):901–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: guidance for industry. 2009. Accessed 15 May 2019.
  16. 16.
    Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. European Medicines Agency; 2005. Doc. Ref. EMEA/CHMP/EWP/139391/2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith HS, Criner AJ, Fehrle D, Grabianowski CL, Jacobs MR, Criner GJ. Use of smartphone/tablet-based bidirectional telemedicine disease management program facilitates early detection and treatment of COPD exacerbation symptoms. Telemed J E-Health. 2016;22(5):395–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, et al. 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. Value Health. 2009;12(4):419–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    CDER patient-focused drug development. 2018. Accessed 28 June 2019.
  20. 20.
    Coons SJ, Eremenco S, Lundy JJ, O’Donohoe P, O’Gorman H, Malizia W. Capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data electronically: the past, present, and promise of ePRO measurement in clinical trials. Patient. 2015;8:301–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rose M, Bezjak A. Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: an overview and practical examples. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):125–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E. Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Caner J Clin. 2012;62:336–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jose N, Langel K. ePRO vs. paper. Appl Clin Trials Online. 2010. Accessed 15 May 2019.
  24. 24.
    Ring A, Cheong KA, Watkins CL, Meddis D, Cella D, Harper PG. A randomized study of electronic diary versus paper and pencil collection of patient-reported outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Patient. 2008;1(2):105–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hollen P, Gralla RJ, Jones RA, Thomas CY, Brenin DR, Weiss GR, et al. A theory-based decision aid for patients with cancer: results of feasibility and acceptability testing of DecisionKEYS for cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(3):889–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Allena M, Cuzzoni MG, Tassorelli C, Nappi G, Antonaci F. An electronic diary on a palm device for headache monitoring: a preliminary experience. J Headache Pain. 2012;13(7):537–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greenwood MC, Hakim AJ, Carson E, Doyle DV. Touch-screen computer systems in the rheumatology clinic offer a reliable and user-friendly means of collecting quality-of-life and outcome data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006;45(1):66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stinson JN, Petroz GC, Stevens BJ, Feldman BM, Streiner D, McGrath PJ, et al. Working out the kinks: testing the feasibility of an electronic pain diary for adolescents with arthritis. Pain Res Manag. 2008;13(5):375–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bushnell DM, Reilly MC, Galani C, Martin ML, Ricci JF, Patrick DL, et al. Validation of electronic data capture of the irritable bowel syndrome-quality of life measure, the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire for irritable bowel syndrome and the EuroQol. Value Health. 2006;9(2):98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Araujo L, Jacinto T, Moreira A, Castel-Branco MG, Delgado L, Costa-Pereira A, et al. Clinical efficacy of web-based versus standard asthma self-management. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2012;22(1):28–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gwaltney C, Coons SJ, O’Donohoe P, O’Gorman H, Denomey M, Howry C, et al. “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD): the future of field-based patient-reported outcome data collection in clinical trials? Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015;49(6):783–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vervloet M, Linn AJ, van Weert JCM, de Bakker DH, Bouvy ML, van Dijk L. The effectiveness of interventions using electronic reminders to improve adherence to chronic medication: a systemic review of the literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(5):696–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tao D, Xie L, Wang T, Wang T. A meta-analysis of the use of electronic reminders for patient adherence to medication in chronic disease care. J Telemed Telecare. 2015;21(1):3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaptein AA, Fischer MJ, Scharloo M. Self-management in patients with COPD: theoretical context, content, outcomes, and integration into clinical care. Int J Chron Onstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014;9:907–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ERTBostonUSA
  2. 2.Endpoint OutcomesBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations