Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34921668›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2021

Considerations for conducting and reporting digitally supported cognitive interviews with children and adults.

Abigail Fry, Sandra A Mitchell, Lori Wiener

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04044365 (Development and Psychometric Testing of a Pediatric Chronic Graft- Versus-Host Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04044365 active not recruitingnot on this map

Development and Psychometric Testing of a Pediatric Chronic Graft- Versus-Host Disease (GVHD) Symptom Scale (PCSS)

TypeobservationalSponsorNational Cancer Institute (NCI)Ran2019 to 2026Enrolled139ConditionsGraft vs Host Disease
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Abigail FryPediatric Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sandra A MitchellOutcomes Research Branch, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 8909 Medical Center Drive, 3E-448, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA. Sandra.mitchell@nih.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4153-9972
Lori WienerPediatric Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
National Institutes of Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCognitive interviewing is a well-established qualitative method used to develop and refine PRO measures. A range of digital technologies including phone, web conferencing, and electronic survey platforms can be leveraged to support the conduct of cognitive interviewing in both children and adults. These technologies offer a potential solution to enrolling underrepresented populations, including those with rare conditions, functional limitations and geographic or socioeconomic barriers. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of digital technologies for qualitative interviewing will remain essential. However, there is limited guidance about adapting cognitive interviewing procedures to allow for remote data capture, especially with children.

methodsSynthesizing the literature and our research experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, we examine considerations for implementing digitally supported cognitive interviews with children, adolescents, and adults. We offer recommendations to optimize data quality and empirical rigor and illustrate the application of these recommendations in an ongoing cognitive interviewing study to develop and refine a new pediatric PRO measure.

resultsGood research practices must address participant and researcher preparation for study-related procedures and should anticipate and pre-emptively manage technological barriers. Field notes should detail interview context, audio/video cues, and any impact of technological difficulties on data quality. The approaches we recommend have been tested in an ongoing cognitive interviewing study that is enrolling children/adolescents with cGVHD ages 5-17 and their caregivers [NCT04044365]. The combined use of telephone and videoconferencing to conduct cognitive interviews remotely is feasible and acceptable and yields meaningful data to improve the content validity of our new PRO measure of cGVHD symptom bother.

conclusionDigitally supported cognitive interviewing procedures will be increasingly employed. Remote data collection can accelerate accrual, particularly in multi-site studies, and may allow for interviewer personnel and data management to be centralized within a coordinating center, thus conserving resources. Research is needed to further test and refine techniques for remote cognitive interviewing, particularly in traditionally underrepresented populations, including children and non-English speakers. Expansion of international standards to address digitally supported remote qualitative data capture appears warranted.

Indexed as

Cognitive debriefingDigitally supported research methodsInstrument developmentPatient-reported outcomesPediatricsQualitative interviewingRemote qualitative research

Identifiers

PMID34921668
PMCPMC8683807
OpenAlexW4200073753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.