Elsevier

Controlled Clinical Trials

Volume 25, Issue 6, December 2004, Pages 585-597
Controlled Clinical Trials

Symptom recording in a randomised clinical trial: paper diaries vs. electronic or telephone data capture,☆☆

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2004.09.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Patients may be asked to register a symptom daily in clinical trials. A problem associated with this kind of registration is that patients do not always fill in the diary at the appropriate time. As there is evidence showing that memory is unreliable, this undermines the entire purpose of collecting daily data on paper diaries. We aimed to compare accuracy, autocorrelations of consecutive entries, and responsiveness in paper diaries (P-Diaries) with electronic diaries (E-Diaries) and telephone diaries (T-Diaries).

Methods

In a multi-centre, open, and parallel trial, 177 patients were allocated at random to P-Diaries, E-Diaries, or T-Diaries for the registration of symptoms through 4 weeks of treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). The primary outcome measure was the diaries.

Findings

The proportion of patients completing all morning and all evening entries on time was low for both E-Diary and T-Diary groups. By accepting entries that were done half a day late, the proportion was increased to 19/57 (33%) for the E-Diary group, and to 9/61 (15%) for the T-Diary group. For P-Diary, where no control for time registration and entries was adapted, 37/59 (63%) of the patients completed all morning and all evening entries. A significant higher autocorrelation in P-Diaries was also found. Responsiveness was similar regardless of method of data capture.

Interpretation

The results are consistent with the suggestion that data in the P-Diaries are not filled in at the appropriate time. Use of E-Diaries or T-Diaries improves quality and is recommended in future clinical trials.

Introduction

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) represent an umbrella term that captures in a variety of ways how patients perceive symptoms or a disease, and how they respond to treatment. One of the most frequently used PROs is the measurement of frequency and severity of symptoms. Subjective assessments of symptoms offer a perspective that extends beyond biomedical markers and should be regarded as complimentary to the “objective” signs and symptoms of a disease [1]. Other commonly used PROs in conjunction with the evaluation of treatment efficacy are medication outcome and health-related quality of life assessment. PROs can be administered in different ways, with paper copies or electronic devices being two commonly used routes of data capture [2]. While these instruments have the advantage of being patient-reported, there are problems inherent in their use. Because paper-based instruments are unsupervised, errors may occur. Patients may misunderstand questions, miss questions, select more than one response option where one is intended, or place a mark between the options. Moreover, patients may be asked to register an assessment every morning and every evening for a period of time. A problem associated with this kind of registration is that patients do not always fill in the diary at the appropriate time. In fact, it is likely that patients may complete their diaries just before attending a study visit at the clinic. This has implications on memory retrieval of symptom occurrence and intensity, i.e., fluctuations during the week might be missed, speed of onset might not be recorded correctly, and the last impressions of either adequate or inadequate symptom resolution might be overestimated unless recorded on a daily basis. Additionally, there may be a further reason for bias related to the fact that human beings have a tendency not to be willing to disclose that the instructions have not been followed [3].

We believe that these findings have far-reaching implications. When patients in paper-based diary studies report high adherence, it must seriously be considered the possibility that actual adherence may have been much lower. In the absence of an objective, documentation of good actual adherence with paper-based diaries jeopardizes validity and statistical power, and might introduce bias because patients might report symptoms as perceived during the last days rather than on a daily basis.

There is an abundance of evidence indicating that memory is not a unitary phenomenon [4], [5] when doing subjective assessments. It is as much a matter of reconstruction as retrieval [6].

What is called episodic memory does very well illustrate this problem [7]. It has been shown that retrieval is unreliable and rife with inaccuracies and biases. This undermines the entire purpose of collecting diary data and the validity of paper diaries may therefore be questioned. If adherence can be improved, quality will be improved and money saved. The results of clinical trials would be strengthened, and the discontinuation rate reduced [8].

The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy, responsiveness, and autocorrelation of consecutive entries in paper diaries (P-Diaries) with electronic diaries (E-Diaries) and telephone diaries (T-Diaries) for the registration of symptoms through 4 weeks of treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). Additional objectives were to identify potential problems associated with the patients' use of the diaries and to compare assessments made by the investigator and by the patient.

Section snippets

Patients and study design

No statistical determination of sample size has been done since the study is of exploratory nature. However, approximately 50 evaluable patients were judged to be sufficient to give an estimate for detection of a difference in symptom assessments in diaries. In this multi-centre, open, randomised, and parallel study, a total of 177 patients (86 males and 91 females) were included in 13 centres in Denmark between March and August 2002. Nine centres were general practice and four were specialist

Results

All analyses were performed using the statistical software package SAS version 8.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Discussion

To verify the proportion of entries completed on time and the proportion of entries completed half a day late, we compared P-Diaries with E-Diaries and T-Diaries. As noted, for P-Diaries entries could be made outside the designated time. Our study demonstrates that the number of entries that were done on time or half a day late was relatively high in each of the diary groups, with highest proportion for E-Diaries. A probable explanation for the low proportion of entries in T-Diary might be that

Acknowledgments

We thank all participating investigators who provided and cared for study patients and A. Malm who conducted all the statistical analyses.

References (20)

  • M. Falk

    Compliance with treatment and the art of medicine

    Am. J. Cardiol.

    (2001)
  • F. Guillemin et al.

    Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines

    J. Clin. Epidemiol.

    (1993)
  • G.H. Guyatt et al.

    Should study subjects see their previous responses?

    J. Chronic. Dis.

    (1985)
  • J. Dent

    Long-term aims of treatment of reflux diseases, and the role of non-drug measures

    Digestion

    (1992)
  • M.R. Hufford et al.

    Ecological momentary assessment: real world, real-time measurement of patient experience

  • A.A. Stone et al.

    Patient non-compliance with paper diaries

    BMJ

    (2002)
  • L.-G. Nilsson et al.

    The Betula Prospective Cohort Study: memory, health, and aging

    Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn.

    (1997)
  • O.M. Wolkowitz et al.

    Defining cognitive changes in depression and anxiety: a psychobiological analysis

    Psychiatr. Psychobiol.

    (1988)
  • S. Shiffman

    Real-time self-report of momentary states in the natural environment: computerized ecological momentary assessment

  • A.A. Gorin et al.

    Recall biases and cognitive errors in retrospective self-reports: a call for momentary assessments

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (61)

  • Menstrual questionnaires for clinical and research use

    2017, Best Practice and Research: Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Both diaries and questionnaires have been used to collect data on patient-based outcomes among women with HMB. Prospective electronic data collection is increasingly being used to study medical conditions in their “natural environment,” when multiple data entries and the specific times of the entries must be obtained [56–58]. This method is also known as ecological momentary assessment, experience sampling, or real-time data collection [59,60].

  • Challenges during long-term follow-up of ICU patients with and without chronic disease

    2016, Australian Critical Care
    Citation Excerpt :

    Use of electronic diaries can improve the quality of data captured but in our case was not available for the follow-up of patients. Advances in this technology have shown it to be successful in improving compliance with study protocols and in the accuracy of information provided by patients.32,33 Researchers of other follow-up studies planning to use electronic diaries need to ensure patients are comfortable with information technology such as smart phone applications or a web-based method of recording information.

  • Influence of psychological factors on acute exacerbation of tension-type headache: Investigation by ecological momentary assessment

    2015, Journal of Psychosomatic Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    This was an advantage over EMA that uses paper-and-pencil diaries [16] as in previous studies, particularly when investigating temporal relationships. Furthermore, “faked compliance,” which is a disguise of compliance by recording data at times other than those designated, has been discussed with respect to paper-and-pencil diaries [16] and faked compliance not only makes the time axis inaccurate but also may affect the data itself [10]. Such data inaccuracy can also be avoided in cEMA.

View all citing articles on Scopus

Contributors: K. Lauritsen was the principal investigator of the study, revised the clinical protocol, assessed patients, interpreted data, and wrote the final manuscript as well as the early versions. A. degl' Innocenti was the project leader of the study, created the hypothesis and the design for the study, wrote and edited the clinical protocol, analysed and interpreted the data, and wrote the final manuscript as well as the early versions. L. Hendel, J. Præst, and M.F. Lytje assessed patients and revised the protocol as well as all the versions of the manuscript. K. Clemmensen-Rotne was the study coordinator, revised the clinical protocol, obtained data, provided advice on the fieldwork, and revised all versions of the manuscript as well as wrote the final manuscript. I. Wiklund created the design for the study, wrote the grant proposal, edited the clinical protocol, and analyzed and interpreted the data as well as edited the manuscript.

☆☆

Conflicts of Interest Statement: K. Lauritsen, L. Hendel, J. Præst, and M.F. Lytje received reimbursement from AstraZeneca for costs related to the conduct of the study. A. degl' Innocenti, K. Clemmensen-Rotne, and I. Wiklund were employed at AstraZeneca.

View full text