Broderick Joan E
Dept. of Psychiatry & Behavioral Science Stony Brook University Stony Brook, New York.
Pharmaceut Med. 2008 Jan 1;22(2):69-74. doi: 10.1007/BF03256686.
The recent explosion of technology has moved the field of patient reported outcomes (PROs) into a new era. Use of paper-and-pencil questionnaires administered before and after treatment has been eclipsed by highly sophisticated random prompts for symptom ratings at multiple points throughout the day, a method known as ecological momentary assessment (EMA). During the last 25 years, research has demonstrated that retrospective ratings are subject to a variety of cognitive heuristics that can distort the report. Initially, this was addressed by adopting paper diary protocols involving multiple ratings in a day or across a week. Technology was also advancing, and some researchers began to utilize electronic platforms for EMA assessment. A good deal of research has been conducted comparing paper and electronic formats. Issues of compliance have been particularly problematic for paper diaries. Electronic technologies can be expensive and require expertise in programming and data management. Not all research questions will require intensive momentary assessment, and end-of-day ratings may be adequate for many applications. What is required of the investigator is familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of the methods and platforms available as well as a reasoned decision to elect a particular methodology for the study question at hand.
最近技术的迅猛发展已将患者报告结局(PROs)领域带入了一个新时代。治疗前后使用纸笔问卷的方式,已被全天多个时间点的高度复杂的随机症状评分提示所取代,这种方法被称为生态瞬时评估(EMA)。在过去25年中,研究表明回顾性评分容易受到各种认知启发式方法的影响,这些方法可能会扭曲报告。最初,这通过采用纸质日记协议来解决,该协议涉及一天内或一周内的多次评分。技术也在不断进步,一些研究人员开始利用电子平台进行EMA评估。已经进行了大量比较纸质和电子格式的研究。对于纸质日记来说,依从性问题尤其棘手。电子技术可能成本高昂,并且需要编程和数据管理方面的专业知识。并非所有研究问题都需要密集的瞬时评估,对于许多应用而言,每日结束时的评分可能就足够了。研究人员需要熟悉可用方法和平台的优缺点,并做出合理的决定,为手头的研究问题选择特定的方法。