Quality of life assessment in clinical trials - guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: The U.K. Medical Research Council experience

P. M. Fayers*, P. Hopwood, A. Harvey, D. J. Girling, D. Machin, R. Stephens

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

112 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Many clinical trials groups now routinely consider including Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in trials. Indeed, several have policies stating that QoL should be considered as a potential endpoint in all new trials and that if it is not to be evaluated the applicants should justify not doing so. However, inclusion of QoL in clinical trials presents a number of difficult organisational issues, and serious problems in compliance have frequently been reported. Thus, in multicentre clinical trials many of the expected QoL questionnaires fail to be successfully completed and returned, although a few groups have claimed high success rates. However, it is well recognised that if questionnaires are missing, there may be bias in the interpretation of trial results, and the estimates of treatment differences and the overall level of QoL may be inaccurate and misleading. Hence it is important to seek methods of improving compliance, at the level of both the participating institution and the patient. We describe a number of methods for addressing these issues, which we suggest should be considered by all those writing clinical trial protocols involving QoL assessment. These are based upon over a decade of experience with assessing QoL in Medical Research Council (MRC) cancer clinical trials. In particular, we provide a checklist for points that should be covered in protocols. Examples are given from a range of current MRC Cancer Trials Office protocols, which it is proposed might act as templates when writing new protocols.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)20-28
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Journal of Cancer
Volume33
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1997

Fingerprint

Checklist
Biomedical Research
Quality of Life
Clinical Trials
Guidelines
Clinical Protocols
Compliance
Multicenter Studies
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • cancer clinical trials
  • patient compliance
  • protocol design
  • quality of life
  • randomised controlled trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Quality of life assessment in clinical trials - guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers : The U.K. Medical Research Council experience. / Fayers, P. M.; Hopwood, P.; Harvey, A.; Girling, D. J.; Machin, D.; Stephens, R.

In: European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 33, No. 1, 01.1997, p. 20-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{76deaa3b349d4c4194da4d73cc1f2307,
title = "Quality of life assessment in clinical trials - guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: The U.K. Medical Research Council experience",
abstract = "Many clinical trials groups now routinely consider including Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in trials. Indeed, several have policies stating that QoL should be considered as a potential endpoint in all new trials and that if it is not to be evaluated the applicants should justify not doing so. However, inclusion of QoL in clinical trials presents a number of difficult organisational issues, and serious problems in compliance have frequently been reported. Thus, in multicentre clinical trials many of the expected QoL questionnaires fail to be successfully completed and returned, although a few groups have claimed high success rates. However, it is well recognised that if questionnaires are missing, there may be bias in the interpretation of trial results, and the estimates of treatment differences and the overall level of QoL may be inaccurate and misleading. Hence it is important to seek methods of improving compliance, at the level of both the participating institution and the patient. We describe a number of methods for addressing these issues, which we suggest should be considered by all those writing clinical trial protocols involving QoL assessment. These are based upon over a decade of experience with assessing QoL in Medical Research Council (MRC) cancer clinical trials. In particular, we provide a checklist for points that should be covered in protocols. Examples are given from a range of current MRC Cancer Trials Office protocols, which it is proposed might act as templates when writing new protocols.",
keywords = "cancer clinical trials, patient compliance, protocol design, quality of life, randomised controlled trials",
author = "Fayers, {P. M.} and P. Hopwood and A. Harvey and Girling, {D. J.} and D. Machin and R. Stephens",
note = "Acknowledgements The examples cited have been drawn from a variety of MRC protocols, and we wish to thank the many members of the various MRC Working Parties who have contributed to the development and wording of these protocols; in particular, the MRC Lung Cancer Working Party has played a major role in influencing the MRC approach.",
year = "1997",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0959-8049(96)00412-1",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "20--28",
journal = "European Journal of Cancer",
issn = "0959-8049",
publisher = "ELSEVIER APPL SCI PUBL LTD",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of life assessment in clinical trials - guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers

T2 - The U.K. Medical Research Council experience

AU - Fayers, P. M.

AU - Hopwood, P.

AU - Harvey, A.

AU - Girling, D. J.

AU - Machin, D.

AU - Stephens, R.

N1 - Acknowledgements The examples cited have been drawn from a variety of MRC protocols, and we wish to thank the many members of the various MRC Working Parties who have contributed to the development and wording of these protocols; in particular, the MRC Lung Cancer Working Party has played a major role in influencing the MRC approach.

PY - 1997/1

Y1 - 1997/1

N2 - Many clinical trials groups now routinely consider including Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in trials. Indeed, several have policies stating that QoL should be considered as a potential endpoint in all new trials and that if it is not to be evaluated the applicants should justify not doing so. However, inclusion of QoL in clinical trials presents a number of difficult organisational issues, and serious problems in compliance have frequently been reported. Thus, in multicentre clinical trials many of the expected QoL questionnaires fail to be successfully completed and returned, although a few groups have claimed high success rates. However, it is well recognised that if questionnaires are missing, there may be bias in the interpretation of trial results, and the estimates of treatment differences and the overall level of QoL may be inaccurate and misleading. Hence it is important to seek methods of improving compliance, at the level of both the participating institution and the patient. We describe a number of methods for addressing these issues, which we suggest should be considered by all those writing clinical trial protocols involving QoL assessment. These are based upon over a decade of experience with assessing QoL in Medical Research Council (MRC) cancer clinical trials. In particular, we provide a checklist for points that should be covered in protocols. Examples are given from a range of current MRC Cancer Trials Office protocols, which it is proposed might act as templates when writing new protocols.

AB - Many clinical trials groups now routinely consider including Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in trials. Indeed, several have policies stating that QoL should be considered as a potential endpoint in all new trials and that if it is not to be evaluated the applicants should justify not doing so. However, inclusion of QoL in clinical trials presents a number of difficult organisational issues, and serious problems in compliance have frequently been reported. Thus, in multicentre clinical trials many of the expected QoL questionnaires fail to be successfully completed and returned, although a few groups have claimed high success rates. However, it is well recognised that if questionnaires are missing, there may be bias in the interpretation of trial results, and the estimates of treatment differences and the overall level of QoL may be inaccurate and misleading. Hence it is important to seek methods of improving compliance, at the level of both the participating institution and the patient. We describe a number of methods for addressing these issues, which we suggest should be considered by all those writing clinical trial protocols involving QoL assessment. These are based upon over a decade of experience with assessing QoL in Medical Research Council (MRC) cancer clinical trials. In particular, we provide a checklist for points that should be covered in protocols. Examples are given from a range of current MRC Cancer Trials Office protocols, which it is proposed might act as templates when writing new protocols.

KW - cancer clinical trials

KW - patient compliance

KW - protocol design

KW - quality of life

KW - randomised controlled trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031020394&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0959-8049(96)00412-1

DO - 10.1016/S0959-8049(96)00412-1

M3 - Review article

C2 - 9071894

AN - SCOPUS:0031020394

VL - 33

SP - 20

EP - 28

JO - European Journal of Cancer

JF - European Journal of Cancer

SN - 0959-8049

IS - 1

ER -