Proceedings of Abstracts, School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science Research Conference 2022

© 2022 The Author(s). This is an open-access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For further details please see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Plenary by Prof. Timothy Foat, ‘Indoor dispersion at Dstl and its recent application to COVID-19 transmission’ is © Crown copyright (2022), Dstl. This material is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] present proceedings record the abstracts submitted and accepted for presentation at SPECS 2022, the second edition of the School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science Research Conference that took place online, the 12th April 2022

A Randomized Study of Electronic Diary versus Paper and Pencil Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background: Hand-held electronic devices may provide a simple reproducible means by which quality of life (QOL) may be documented in patients with cancer. However, the QOL scales that are routinely used were originally validated when used with paper and pencil data collection. Patient-reported outcomes acquired using hand-held electronic devices (electronic patient-reported outcomes [e-PRO]) may not be the same as those acquired using paper and pencil, so validation of this method of data collection is needed. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the results of e-PRO and paper and pencil collection of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) and EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) QOL data in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and to ascertain patients' preferences for the different modes of collection. Methods: This randomized, single-cohort, crossover study was performed in a tertiary referral hospital cancer center. Fifty patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were randomized in a 1___1 ratio to complete either paper versions of the questionnaires (FACT-L and EQ-5D) followed by the e-PRO versions, or the e-PRO questionnaire followed by the paper versions. Results: The majority (88%) of the FACT-L and all (100%) of the EQ-5D individual question responses were within +-1 point of each other when data collection via e-PRO and via pencil and paper were compared. There was no significant difference between the mean total FACT-L scores obtained using the two methods; however, 29% of patients had a difference between FACT-L total scores obtained with the two methods that was greater than +-6 points. The mean completion time was shorter for the paper and pencil method than the e-PRO method (pNon-small-cell-lung-cancer, Patient-preference, Quality-of-life