A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials

Abstract Background Data collection is a substantial part of trial workload for participants and staff alike. How these hours of work are spent is important because stakeholders are more interested in some outcomes than others. The ORINOCO study compared the time spent collecting primary outcome dat...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Trials
Main Authors: Heidi Gardner, Adel Elfeky, David Pickles, Annabel Dawson, Katie Gillies, Violet Warwick, Shaun Treweek
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2022-12-01
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06973-8
_version_ 1852674518856761344
author Heidi Gardner
Adel Elfeky
David Pickles
Annabel Dawson
Katie Gillies
Violet Warwick
Shaun Treweek
author_facet Heidi Gardner
Adel Elfeky
David Pickles
Annabel Dawson
Katie Gillies
Violet Warwick
Shaun Treweek
author_sort Heidi Gardner
collection DOAJ
container_title Trials
description Abstract Background Data collection is a substantial part of trial workload for participants and staff alike. How these hours of work are spent is important because stakeholders are more interested in some outcomes than others. The ORINOCO study compared the time spent collecting primary outcome data to the time spent collecting secondary outcome data in a cohort of trials. Methods We searched PubMed for phase III trials indexed between 2015 and 2019. From these, we randomly selected 120 trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention plus an additional random selection of 20 trials evaluating a public health intervention. We also added eligible trials from a cohort of 189 trials in rheumatology that had used the same core outcome set. We then obtained the time taken to collect primary and secondary outcomes in each trial. We used a hierarchy of methods that included data in trial reports, contacting the trial team and approaching individuals with experience of using the identified outcome measures. We calculated the primary to secondary data collection time ratio and notional data collection cost for each included trial. Results We included 161 trials (120 phase III; 21 core outcome set; 20 public health), which together collected 230 primary and 688 secondary outcomes. Full primary and secondary timing data were obtained for 134 trials (100 phase III; 17 core outcome set; 17 public health). The median time spent on primaries was 56.1 h (range: 0.0–10,746.7, IQR: 226.89) and the median time spent on secondaries was 190.7 hours (range: 0.0–1,356,832.9, IQR: 617.6). The median primary to secondary data collection time ratio was 1.0:3.0 (i.e. for every minute spent on primary outcomes, 3.0 were spent on secondaries). The ratio varied by trial type: phase III trials were 1.0:3.1, core outcome set 1.0:3.4 and public health trials 1.0:2.2. The median notional overall data collection cost was £8015.73 (range: £52.90–£31,899,140.70, IQR: £20,096.64). Conclusions Depending on trial type, between two and three times as much time is spent collecting secondary outcome data than collecting primary outcome data. Trial teams should explicitly consider how long it will take to collect the data for an outcome and decide whether that time is worth it given importance of the outcome to the trial.
format Article
id doaj-art-2fa0de7bb9ed4dacae2c2c7030ec059d
institution Directory of Open Access Journals
issn 1745-6215
language English
publishDate 2022-12-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
spelling doaj-art-2fa0de7bb9ed4dacae2c2c7030ec059d2025-08-19T21:31:40ZengBMCTrials1745-62152022-12-0123111210.1186/s13063-022-06973-8A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trialsHeidi Gardner0Adel Elfeky1David Pickles2Annabel DawsonKatie Gillies3Violet Warwick4Shaun Treweek5Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Services Research UnitHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Services Research UnitRheumatology Department, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Services Research UnitSchool of Medicine, University of DundeeHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Services Research UnitAbstract Background Data collection is a substantial part of trial workload for participants and staff alike. How these hours of work are spent is important because stakeholders are more interested in some outcomes than others. The ORINOCO study compared the time spent collecting primary outcome data to the time spent collecting secondary outcome data in a cohort of trials. Methods We searched PubMed for phase III trials indexed between 2015 and 2019. From these, we randomly selected 120 trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention plus an additional random selection of 20 trials evaluating a public health intervention. We also added eligible trials from a cohort of 189 trials in rheumatology that had used the same core outcome set. We then obtained the time taken to collect primary and secondary outcomes in each trial. We used a hierarchy of methods that included data in trial reports, contacting the trial team and approaching individuals with experience of using the identified outcome measures. We calculated the primary to secondary data collection time ratio and notional data collection cost for each included trial. Results We included 161 trials (120 phase III; 21 core outcome set; 20 public health), which together collected 230 primary and 688 secondary outcomes. Full primary and secondary timing data were obtained for 134 trials (100 phase III; 17 core outcome set; 17 public health). The median time spent on primaries was 56.1 h (range: 0.0–10,746.7, IQR: 226.89) and the median time spent on secondaries was 190.7 hours (range: 0.0–1,356,832.9, IQR: 617.6). The median primary to secondary data collection time ratio was 1.0:3.0 (i.e. for every minute spent on primary outcomes, 3.0 were spent on secondaries). The ratio varied by trial type: phase III trials were 1.0:3.1, core outcome set 1.0:3.4 and public health trials 1.0:2.2. The median notional overall data collection cost was £8015.73 (range: £52.90–£31,899,140.70, IQR: £20,096.64). Conclusions Depending on trial type, between two and three times as much time is spent collecting secondary outcome data than collecting primary outcome data. Trial teams should explicitly consider how long it will take to collect the data for an outcome and decide whether that time is worth it given importance of the outcome to the trial.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06973-8Randomised trialsData collectionOutcomesCore outcome setsResearch waste
spellingShingle Heidi Gardner
Adel Elfeky
David Pickles
Annabel Dawson
Katie Gillies
Violet Warwick
Shaun Treweek
A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials
Randomised trials
Data collection
Outcomes
Core outcome sets
Research waste
title A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials
title_full A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials
title_fullStr A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials
title_full_unstemmed A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials
title_short A good use of time? Providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials
title_sort good use of time providing evidence for how effort is invested in primary and secondary outcome data collection in trials
topic Randomised trials
Data collection
Outcomes
Core outcome sets
Research waste
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06973-8
work_keys_str_mv AT heidigardner agooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT adelelfeky agooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT davidpickles agooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT annabeldawson agooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT katiegillies agooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT violetwarwick agooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT shauntreweek agooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT heidigardner gooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT adelelfeky gooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT davidpickles gooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT annabeldawson gooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT katiegillies gooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT violetwarwick gooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials
AT shauntreweek gooduseoftimeprovidingevidenceforhoweffortisinvestedinprimaryandsecondaryoutcomedatacollectionintrials