Test-retest of computerized health status questionnaires frequently used in the monitoring of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized crossover trial

Henrik Gudbergsen, Else M Bartels, Peter Krusager, Eva E Wæhrens, Robin Christensen, Bente Danneskiold-Samsøe, Henning Bliddal, Henrik Gudbergsen, Else M Bartels, Peter Krusager, Eva E Wæhrens, Robin Christensen, Bente Danneskiold-Samsøe, Henning Bliddal

Abstract

Background: To compare data based on touch screen to data based on traditional paper versions of questionnaires frequently used to examine patient reported outcomes in knee osteoarthritis patients and to examine the impact of patient characteristics on this comparison

Methods: Participants were recruited from an ongoing trial (http://ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT00655941). 20 female participants, mean age 67 (SD 7), completed KOOS, VAS pain, function and patient global, SF-36, Physical Activity Scale, painDETECT, and the ADL Taxonomy. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two subgroups, completing either the paper or touch screen version first. Mean, mean differences (95% CI), median, median differences and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for all questionnaires.

Results: ICCs between data based on computerized and paper versions ranged from 0.86 to 0.99. Analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between versions of the ADL Taxonomy, but not for the remaining questionnaires. Age, computer experience or education-level had no significant impact on the results. The computerized questionnaires were reported to be easier to use.

Conclusion: The computerized questionnaires gave comparable results to answers given on paper. Patient characteristics did not influence results and implementation was feasible.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of study design.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patients' preferences for either touch screen or paper versions of HSQs in general.

References

    1. Kvien TK, Mowinckel P, Heiberg T, Dammann KL, Dale O, Aanerud GJ, Alme TN, Uhlig T. Performance of health status measures with a pen based personal digital assistant1. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;12:1480–1484. doi: 10.1136/ard.2004.030437.
    1. Richter JG, Becker A, Koch T, Nixdorf M, Willers R, Monser R, Schacher B, Alten R, Specker C, Schneider M. Self-assessments of patients via Tablet PC in routine patient care: comparison with standardised paper questionnaires1. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;12:1739–1741. doi: 10.1136/ard.2008.090209.
    1. Harlin SL, Harlin RD, Sherman TI, Rozsas CM, Shafqat MS, Meyers W. Using a structured, computer-administered questionnaire for evaluating health-related quality of life in patients with chronic lower extremity wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2009;12:30–39.
    1. Litaker D. New technology in quality of life research: are all computer-assisted approaches created equal? Qual Life Res. 2003;12:387–393. doi: 10.1023/A:1023457927406.
    1. Thekkumpurath P, Venkateswaran C, Kumar M, Newsham A, Bennett MI. Screening for psychological distress in palliative care: performance of touch screen questionnaires compared with semistructured psychiatric interview. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;12:597–605. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.01.004.
    1. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Vondechend M, Bellamy N, Theiler R. Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index1. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;12:80–84. doi: 10.1136/ard.2003.019307.
    1. Wilson AS, Kitas GD, Carruthers DM, Reay C, Skan J, Harris S, Treharne GJ, Young SP, Bacon PA. Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: an initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 361. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;12:268–273. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/41.3.268.
    1. Bendixen H, Holst C, Sorensen TI, Raben A, Bartels EM, Astrup A. Major increase in prevalence of overweight and obesity between 1987 and 2001 among Danish adults. Obes Res. 2004;12:1464–1472. doi: 10.1038/oby.2004.183.
    1. Woolf AD, Pfleger B. Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;12:646–656.
    1. Altman RD. Criteria for classification of clinical osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl. 1991;12:10–12.
    1. Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--validation of a Swedish version1. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1998;12:439–448.
    1. Pham T, van der HD, Altman RD, Anderson JJ, Bellamy N, Hochberg M, Simon L, Strand V, Woodworth T, Dougados M. OMERACT-OARSI initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials revisited1. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12:389–399. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2004.02.001.
    1. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;12:3130–3139. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008.
    1. Aadahl M, Jorgensen T. Validation of a new self-report instrument for measuring physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;12:1196–1202. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000074446.02192.14.
    1. Freynhagen R, Baron R, Gockel U, Tolle TR. painDETECT: a new screening questionnaire to identify neuropathic components in patients with back pain. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;12:1911–1920. doi: 10.1185/030079906X132488.
    1. Bent H, Ratzlaff CR, Goligher EC, Kopec JA, Gillies JH. Computer-administered bath ankylosing spondylitis and Quebec Scale outcome questionnaires for low back pain: agreement with traditional paper format. J Rheumatol. 2005;12:669–672.
    1. Törnquist K, Sonn U. Towards an ADL Taxonomy for occupational therapists. Scand J Occup Ther. 1994;12:69–76. doi: 10.3109/11038129409106665.
    1. Wæhrens EE. Measuring quality of occupational performance based on self-report and observation. Development and validation of instruments to evaluate ADL task performance. Umeå, Medical Dissertations; 2010.
    1. Linacre JM. WINSTEPS® Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago, IL; 2009. 3.68.2.
    1. Bekkers JE, de Windt TS, Raijmakers NJ, Dhert WJ, Saris DB. Validation of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for the treatment of focal cartilage lesions. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;12:1434–1439. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2009.04.019.
    1. Hoher J, Munster A, Klein J, Eypasch E, Tiling T. Validation and application of a subjective knee questionnaire. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1995;12:26–33. doi: 10.1007/BF01553522.
    1. Soderman P, Malchau H. Validity and reliability of Swedish WOMAC osteoarthritis index: a self-administered disease-specific questionnaire (WOMAC) versus generic instruments (SF-36 and NHP)1. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;12:39–46. doi: 10.1080/00016470052943874.
    1. Gaston-Johansson F. Measurement of pain: the psychometric properties of the Pain-O-Meter, a simple, inexpensive pain assessment tool that could change health care practices. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1996;12:172–181. doi: 10.1016/0885-3924(96)00128-5.
    1. Rat AC, Baumann C, Klein S, Loeuille D, Guillemin F. Effect of order of presentation of a generic and a specific health-related quality of life instrument in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a randomized study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;12:429–435. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.07.011.
    1. Kwak L. Measuring physical activity in field studies: Comparison of a questionnaire, 24-hour recall and an accelerometer. Eur J Sports Sci. 2007;12:193–201. doi: 10.1080/17461390701674088.
    1. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Leunig M. Which is the best activity rating scale for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;12:958–965. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0358-5.
    1. McDonald DD, Fedo J. Older adults' pain communication: the effect of interruption. Pain Manag Nurs. 2009;12:149–153. doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2009.03.003.
    1. Kleinman L, Leidy NK, Crawley J, Bonomi A, Schoenfeld P. A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;12:181–189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200102000-00008.
    1. Greenwood MC, Hakim AJ, Carson E, Doyle DV. Touch-screen computer systems in the rheumatology clinic offer a reliable and user-friendly means of collecting quality-of-life and outcome data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;12:66–71. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kei100.
    1. Cook AJ, Roberts DA, Henderson MD, Van Winkle LC, Chastain DC, Hamill-Ruth RJ. Electronic pain questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain. 2004;12:310–317. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.04.012.
    1. Schefte DB, Hetland ML. An open-source, self-explanatory touch screen in routine care. Validity of filling in the Bath measures on Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Function Index, the Health Assessment Questionnaire and Visual Analogue Scales in comparison with paper versions. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010;12:99–104. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kep333.
    1. Goodhart IM, Ibbotson V, Doane A, Roberts B, Campbell MJ, Ross RJ. Hypopituitary patients prefer a touch-screen to paper quality of life questionnaire. Growth Horm IGF Res. 2005;12:384–387. doi: 10.1016/j.ghir.2005.08.002.
    1. Larsson BW. Touch-screen versus paper-and-pen questionnaires: effects on patients' evaluations of quality of care. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2006;12:328–338.
    1. Hetland ML. DANBIO--powerful research database and electronic patient record. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011;12:69–77. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq309.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit