Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
PHASE3
230 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2019-09-01
2021-04-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Intervention to Improve Self-Care of Symptoms in Breast Cancer Survivors on Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy
NCT01738685
A Study to Evaluate a Diary for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)
NCT02507804
Optimized Rehabilitation Following Primary Breast Cancer Surgery
NCT03434717
Breast Cancer Patient Engagement With Patient Reported Outcome Measure Survey
NCT03995082
Electronic Psycho-oncological Adaptive Screening Program
NCT04749056
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Currently, the paper-version of these PROMs, pPROMs, has been the standard version. With this comes some advantages, such as the ability to save and store filled PROMS, and for patients to fill them out when it suits them best, not having to answer all questions at once. At the same time, there are also disadvantages, such as that storing and processing the data is a tedious and resource-consuming task. Additionally, patients occasionally find it inconvenient to return the pPROMS by post; finally, the consumption of paper is not viewed as a environmentally friendly behaviour. At the same time and in the new era of digitalization, internet-based studies, such as surveys, become more popular. Most validated PROMS have been utilised in several occasions, and there is an effort for their standardisation in health care. These e-PROMs (electronic PROMs) seem to be more time-efficient since they do not have to be processed manually, but instead can be directly connected to digital systems which transform raw data (patient response) to big data and scores. It is also a more environment-friendly option since there is no need to print the questionnaires on paper or send them via mail to the patients and then back to the research centre. The question is how patients feel about these electronic versions and if their implementation may simplify PROMS, both for patients and healthcare givers and researchers alike. Even though the older generation at greater length is connected to the internet than before, and are more used to handling it, there are still those who are not comfortable with these new digital services.
Despite this being a reasonable hypothesis, no trials have examined this subject, that is to map the patients' attitudes toward participating in studies, nor which form is the preferred one, ePROMs or pPROMS. It would be reasonable to hypothesize that a more convenient mode of delivery would facilitate patients and would therefore increase response rates. Additionally, there is no randomized data on the optimal mode of PROMS delivery and process as far as monetary, personnel and structural resources are concerned
Reference population for the trial are women from the breast radiology unit, breast outpatient clinic and breast cancer patients from the oncology department of the participating sites. Patients will be asked to participate to this study through a letter sent they receive when receiving their appointment to the respective clinic/department. All patients are asked, regardless of diagnosis, sex or age; at this point, the researchers are not aware of individual information. If they consent, participants are randomised to either e-PROMs or pPROMs.
Trial hypothesis is that ePROMs are more convenient and time-efficient and that with these investigators can increase the response rate from 65% (which was observed in a pilot study previously conducted at the breast outpatient clinic at Uppsala University Hospital) to 80%.The trial is designed as a superiority trial to detect for a 0.15 difference between arms, with a 2-sided p-value=0.05 and 80% power. Sample size calculation was performed with (SampleSize4ClinicalTrials and TrialSize packages). This responds to 109 patients per arm. Patient allocation (1:1) is performed through permuted block randomisation performed on the R statistical software (randomizeR package) in blocks of 8.
Patients that provide oral and written consent for the trial are anonymised and receive a unique study number. They willingly provide contact details (address and e-mail address), in order to receive PROMS after randomization. Patients may decline mode of PROMS delivery, if they prefer otherwise. Patient preference is registered. In analyses, the "intention-to-treat" principle will be followed, but per protocol analyses is intended if the crossover is deemed significant (\>10%).
Data process and analysis
Once filled out, the anonymised ePROMs will be automatically stored to the Uppsala University servers. They are extractable as a Microsoft Excel data sheet. pPROMS will be stored in paper form in a safe location at the participating site. All raw data from both arms will be transferred in an Excel database. This raw data will be processed through algorithms specific to each PROMS to allow for the calculation of the respective PROMS scores.
The time required for this procedure will be registered for statistical analyses.
Patient data to be utilised in the analysis is age and site of recruitment. Other data to be registered are monetary costs for pPROMS postal, monetary costs for pPROMS related consumable materials and hourly cost for the documentation and registration of PROMS in patient electronic journals.
Data and patient safety
Patient data will be treated according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The trial is not expected to affect treatment of patients or affect diagnostic work-up or treatment modality. Participants will not receive monetary compensation. For participants that are wishing it, PROMS scores will be included in their journals.
Publication
Trial results are expected to be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Positive and negative results as well as subgroup analyses for primary characteristics such as patient age are expected to be reported.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
e-PROMS
Patients allocated to the e-PROMS arm will fill an online version of PROMS and then respond to the e-PREMS questionnaire.
e-PROMS
Participants randomised to the e-PROMS arm will receive a safe link to the e-PROMS and a unique identification number in the electronic form, so as to preserve anonymity. This is a one-time intervention
p-PROMS
Patients allocated to the p-PROMS arm will fill in PROMS in paper form (p-PROMS) and then respond to the p-PREMS questionnaire.
p-PROMS
Participants randomised to the p-PROMS arm will receive the PROMS and PREMS questionnaires and a unique identification number in paper form.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
e-PROMS
Participants randomised to the e-PROMS arm will receive a safe link to the e-PROMS and a unique identification number in the electronic form, so as to preserve anonymity. This is a one-time intervention
p-PROMS
Participants randomised to the p-PROMS arm will receive the PROMS and PREMS questionnaires and a unique identification number in paper form.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Women undergoing screening mammography.
Exclusion Criteria
* Deprivation of liberty.
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Uppsala University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Andreas Karakatsanis
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Andreas Karakatsanis, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Uppsala University Hospital
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Uppsala University Hospital
Uppsala, , Sweden
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Pantiora E, Hedman LC, Aristokleous I, Sjokvist O, Karakatsanis A, Schiza A. Effect of mode of delivery of patient reported outcomes in patients with breast disease: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Surg. 2024 Jan 1;110(1):176-182. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000815.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
UUBreast02
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.