Journal of Medical Systems

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 1521–1530 | Cite as

Impact of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Management Information System (PROMIS) upon the Design and Operation of Multi-center Clinical Trials: a Qualitative Research Study

  • Eric L. Eisenstein
  • Lawrence W. Diener
  • Meredith Nahm
  • Kevin P. Weinfurt
Original Paper


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.


Clinical 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


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.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ Contributions

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.


  1. 1.
    Spitzer, W. O., State of science 1986: quality of life and functional status as target variables for research. J. Chronic. Dis. 40:465–471, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Glasgow, R. E., Magid, D. J., Beck, A., Ritzwoller, D., and Estabrooks, P. A., Practical clinical trials for translating research to practice: design and measurement recommendations. Med. Care. 43:551–557, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glasgow, R. E., Green, L. W., Klesges, L. M., et al., External validity: we need to do more. Ann. Behav. Med. 31:105–108, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Green, L. W., and Glasgow, R. E., Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval. Health Prof. 29:126–153, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 7.
    Tunis, S. R., Stryer, D. B., and Clancy, C. M., Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 290:1624–1632, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS) Roadmap Initiative., National Institutes of Health. 2008; Accessed November 22, 2007.
  9. 9.
    Ader, D. N., Developing the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Med. Care. 45:S1–S2, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., et al., The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med. Care. 45:S3–S11, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Role of Purchasers and Payers in the Clinical Research Enterprise, Workshop Summary. National Academy, Washington, D.C., 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sung, N. S., Crowley, W. F., Jr., Genel, M., et al., Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA. 289:1278–1287, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Woolf, S. H., The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA. 299:211–213, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mercer, S. L., DeVinney, B. J., Fine, L. J., Green, L. W., and Dougherty, D., Study designs for effectiveness and translation research: identifying trade-offs. Am. J. Prev. Med. 33:139–154, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 16.
    Campbell, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Haines, A., et al., Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 321:694–696, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blackwood, B., Methodological issues in evaluating complex healthcare interventions. J. Adv. Nurs. 54:612–622, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Paul, G., Smith, S. M., Whitford, D., O’Kelly, F., and O’Dowd, T., Development of a complex intervention to test the effectiveness of peer support in type 2 diabetes. BMC Health Serv. Res. 7:136, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Power, R., Langhaug, L. F., Nyamurera, T., Wilson, D., Bassett, M. T., and Cowan, F. M., Developing complex interventions for rigorous evaluation—a case study from rural Zimbabwe. Health Educ. Res. 19:570–575, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robinson, L., Francis, J., James, P., Tindle, N., Greenwell, K., and Rodgers, H., Caring for carers of people with stroke: developing a complex intervention following the Medical Research Council framework. Clin. Rehabil. 19:560–571, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rowlands, G., Sims, J., and Kerry, S., A lesson learnt: the importance of modelling in randomized controlled trials for complex interventions in primary care. Fam. Pract. 22:132–139, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eisenstein, E. L., Collins, R., Cracknell, B. S., et al., Sensible approaches for reducing clinical trial costs. Clin. Trials. 5:75–84, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Freidman, L., Furberg, C. D., and DeMets, D. L., Fundamentals of Clinical Trials, 3rd edition. Mosby-Year Book, St. Louis, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Corrrigan, M., Cupples, M. E., Smith, S. M., et al., The contribution of qualitative research in designing a complex intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in two different healthcare systems. BMC Health Serv. Res. 6:90, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haynes, B., and Haines, A., Barriers and bridges to evidence based clinical practice. BMJ. 317:273–276, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., and Nicholl, J., Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 7:85, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 29.
    Giacomini, M. K., and Cook, D. J., Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 284:357–362, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giacomini, M. K., and Cook, D. J., Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care B. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 284:478–482, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marshall, M. N., Sampling for qualitative research. Fam. Pract. 13:522–525, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bradley, C. P., Turning anecdotes into data—the critical incident technique. Fam. Pract. 9:98–103, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Evanston Northwestern Health., Functional Specification: Analysis Phase V1.1. PROMIS Project Documentation 08/31/2006. 2006.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    The United Kingdom’s Department of Health., Clinical Trials Tool Kit. 2007; Accessed November 01, 2007.
  35. 35.
    The Stanford/Packard Center for Translational Research in Medicine (SPCTRM)., 2007; Accessed November 01, 2007.
  36. 36.
    The Center for Management Research in Healthcare., Trial Process Views for CALGB (2006) and the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center (2004). 2006; Accessed November 01, 2007.
  37. 37.
    Duke Clinical Research Institute., 2007; Accessed November 01, 2007.
  38. 38.
    US Food and Drug Administration., Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. 2006; Accessed March 29, 2008.
  39. 39.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration., Title 21 cde of federal regulations (21 CFR part 11): electronic records, electronic signatures. 2000; Accessed March 31, 2008.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric L. Eisenstein
    • 1
  • Lawrence W. Diener
    • 1
  • Meredith Nahm
    • 2
  • Kevin P. Weinfurt
    • 1
  1. 1.Duke Clinical Research InstituteDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Duke Translational Medicine InstituteDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations