OBJECTIVES: Innovative approaches in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) research are widely sought. Yet no published research has prospectively compared traditional methods for gathering patient insight with novel methods. In this groundbreaking study, aimed at identifying patient-reported symptoms of Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS), we explored the value of traditional interview methods against social media methods and Group Concept Mapping (GCM). METHODS: Three methodologies were utilized: 1. Open-ended interviews; 2. online AS patient forums; 3. GCM. Participants with AS were recruited from National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society (NASS). Interviews and social media data were analysed using ATLAS.ti.  GCM was conducted on Concept Systems Global ^MAX software, utilizing multivariate and cluster analysis. Analysis for each methodology was performed by an independent researcher to ensure impartiality. Three conceptual models of AS symptoms were developed based on data from each methodology. RESULTS: Participants completed interviews (n=12) or a GCM exercise (n=20). Of 14 social media sources identified, two met pre-defined criteria; 100 posts were analysed. From a scientific perspective, the conceptual models derived from each methodology were broadly comparable supporting the use of novel approaches (in addition to traditional methods) to generate patient insights – variations in the conceptual models (and the reasons why) will be presented. From a practical perspective, time and cost are substantive when interviewing but are significantly less when using social media data or GCM. Furthermore, the ability to perform robust quantitative analysis in GCM is particularly advantageous. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological advancement is key to progress in outcomes research. Without advancing new methods, we cannot develop as a field of scientific inquiry. Typically, researchers intimate the relative benefits of one method over another. However, in this first study to prospectively compare novel with traditional PRO methods, we demonstrated the added value of two new approaches and laid bare the scientific and practical considerations for qualitative PRO research design.