Impact of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Management Information System (PROMIS) upon the Design and Operation of Multi-center Clinical Trials: a Qualitative Research Study
New technologies may be required to integrate the National Institutes of Health’s Patient Reported Outcome Management Information System (PROMIS) into multi-center clinical trials. To better understand this need, we identified likely PROMIS reporting formats, developed a multi-center clinical trial process model, and identified gaps between current capabilities and those necessary for PROMIS. These results were evaluated by key trial constituencies. Issues reported by principal investigators fell into two categories: acceptance by key regulators and the scientific community, and usability for researchers and clinicians. Issues reported by the coordinating center, participating sites, and study subjects were those faced when integrating new technologies into existing clinical trial systems. We then defined elements of a PROMIS Tool Kit required for integrating PROMIS into a multi-center clinical trial environment. The requirements identified in this study serve as a framework for future investigators in the design, development, implementation, and operation of PROMIS Tool Kit technologies.
KeywordsClinical trial Data collection Information systems Outcomes assessment
Computer adaptive test
Duke Clinical Research Institute
Electronic data capture
US Food and Drug Administration
Item Response Theory
Interactive Voice Response system
Medical Research Council
National Institutes of Health
Patient Reported Outcome Management Information System
First translational roadblock
Second translational roadblock
Work breakdown structure
The authors thank Allyn Meredith, MA for her expert work in editing this manuscript. We are also indebted to this study’s focus group participants from the DCRI and to other members of the PROMIS network for their efforts in developing the initial set of process diagrams. This study, including author funding and manuscript preparation, was supported by The National Institutes of Health’s Patient Reported Outcomes RFA: Dynamic Outcome Assessment (5U01 AR052186-04)—a Roadmap Initiative, Kevin Weinfurt Principal Investigator. The funding body did not participate in the study design, in the collection analysis, and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
ELE and LWD participated in the conception and design of the study, analyzed and interpreted data, and drafted the manuscript. MN and KPW participated in the conception and design of the study, analyzed and interpreted data, and critically revised it for intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
- 2.Mark, D. B., Quality of life assessment. In: Califf, R. M., Mark, D. B., and Wagner, G. S. (Eds.), Acute Coronary Care, 2nd edition. Mosby-Year Book, Saint Louis, 1995.Google Scholar
- 6.Green, L., and Ottoson, J., From efficacy to effectiveness to community and back: evidence-based practice vs. practice-based evidence. National Institutes of diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health. 2008.Google Scholar
- 8.Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS) Roadmap Initiative., National Institutes of Health. 2008; www.nihpromis.org: Accessed November 22, 2007.
- 11.The Role of Purchasers and Payers in the Clinical Research Enterprise, Workshop Summary. National Academy, Washington, D.C., 2002.Google Scholar
- 15.Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., and Wallace, F., Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tampa: National Implementation Research Network, Louise de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida. 2005; FMHI publication 231: Accessed November 17, 2007.Google Scholar
- 18.Byrne, M., Cupples, M. E., Smith, S. M., et al., Development of a complex intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care using the UK Medical Research Council framework. Am. J. Manag. Care. 12:261–266, 2006.Google Scholar
- 24.Freidman, L., Furberg, C. D., and DeMets, D. L., Fundamentals of Clinical Trials, 3rd edition. Mosby-Year Book, St. Louis, 1996.Google Scholar
- 28.Altheide, D. L., and Johnson, J. M., Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, London, England, pp. 485–499, 1994.Google Scholar
- 33.Evanston Northwestern Health., Functional Specification: Analysis Phase V1.1. PROMIS Project Documentation 08/31/2006. 2006.Google Scholar
- 34.The United Kingdom’s Department of Health., Clinical Trials Tool Kit. www.ct-toolkit.ac.uk/route_maps/map_landing.cfm/cit_id=250. 2007; Accessed November 01, 2007.
- 35.The Stanford/Packard Center for Translational Research in Medicine (SPCTRM)., http://clinicaltrials.stanford.edu/manual/process_map.html. 2007; Accessed November 01, 2007.
- 36.The Center for Management Research in Healthcare., Trial Process Views for CALGB (2006) and the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center (2004). http://www.cmrhc.org/publications/cat_view-2.html. 2006; Accessed November 01, 2007.
- 37.Duke Clinical Research Institute., http://www.dcri.duke.edu/who_we_are/. 2007; Accessed November 01, 2007.
- 38.US Food and Drug Administration., Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. firstname.lastname@example.org. 2006; Accessed March 29, 2008.
- 39.U.S. Food and Drug Administration., Title 21 cde of federal regulations (21 CFR part 11): electronic records, electronic signatures. http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/part11/. 2000; Accessed March 31, 2008.