Inter-method reliability of paper surveys and computer assisted telephone interviews in a randomized controlled trial of yoga for low back pain

Christian J Cerrada, Janice Weinberg, Karen J Sherman, Robert B Saper, Christian J Cerrada, Janice Weinberg, Karen J Sherman, Robert B Saper

Abstract

Background: Little is known about the reliability of different methods of survey administration in low back pain trials. This analysis was designed to determine the reliability of responses to self-administered paper surveys compared to computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) for the primary outcomes of pain intensity and back-related function, and secondary outcomes of patient satisfaction, SF-36, and global improvement among participants enrolled in a study of yoga for chronic low back pain.

Results: Pain intensity, back-related function, and both physical and mental health components of the SF-36 showed excellent reliability at all three time points; ICC scores ranged from 0.82 to 0.98. Pain medication use showed good reliability; kappa statistics ranged from 0.68 to 0.78. Patient satisfaction had moderate to excellent reliability; ICC scores ranged from 0.40 to 0.86. Global improvement showed poor reliability at 6 weeks (ICC = 0.24) and 12 weeks (ICC = 0.10).

Conclusion: CATI shows excellent reliability for primary outcomes and at least some secondary outcomes when compared to self-administered paper surveys in a low back pain yoga trial. Having two reliable options for data collection may be helpful to increase response rates for core outcomes in back pain trials.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01761617. Date of trial registration: December 4, 2012.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean low back pain intensity over time using all available paper-only data and CATI-only data. Bars indicate 95% confidence interval. CATI: computer assisted telephone interview.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean RMDQ over time using all available paper-only data and CATI-only data. Bars indicate 95% confidence interval. RMDQ: modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (0-23 where higher scores reflect worse back pain-related function); CATI: computer assisted telephone interview.

References

    1. Cook C. Mode of administration bias. J Man Manip Ther. 2010;18:61–63. doi: 10.1179/106698110X12640740712617.
    1. de Leeuw ED. To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. J Off Stat. 2005;21:233–255.
    1. Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health. 2005;27:281–291. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdi031.
    1. Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Parasuraman B. Electronic versus paper questionnaires: a further comparison in persons with asthma. J Asthma. 2003;40:751–762. doi: 10.1081/JAS-120023501.
    1. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008;11:322–333. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x.
    1. Lungenhausen M, Lange S, Maier C, Schaub C, Trampisch HJ, Endres HG. Randomised controlled comparison of the health survey short form (SF-12) and the graded chronic pain scale (GCPS) in telephone interviews versus self-administered questionnaires: are the results equivalent? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:50. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-50.
    1. Fowler FJ, Gallagher PM, Stringfellow VL, Zaslavsky AM, Thompson JW, Cleary PD. Using telephone interviews to reduce nonresponse bias to mail surveys of health plan members. Med Care. 2002;40:190–200. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200203000-00003.
    1. Saper RB, Boah AR, Keosaian J, Cerrada C, Weinberg J, Sherman KJ. Comparing once-versus twice-weekly yoga classes for chronic low back pain in predominantly low income minorities: a randomized dosing trial. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:658030.
    1. StudyTRAX. [ ]
    1. Bombardier C. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine. 2000;25:3100–3103. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00003.
    1. Von Korff M, Jensen MP, Karoly P. Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research. Spine. 2000;25:3140–3151. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00009.
    1. Ritter PL, González VM, Laurent DD, Lorig KR. Measurement of pain using the visual numeric scale. J Rheumatol. 2006;33:574–580.
    1. Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB. Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine. 1995;20:1899–1908. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199509000-00011.
    1. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine. 2000;25:3115–3124. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00006.
    1. Ware JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25(24):3130–3139. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008.
    1. Hudak PL, Wright JG. The characteristics of patient satisfaction measures. Spine. 2000;25:3167–3177. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00012.
    1. Koch GG. In: Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Kotz S, Johnson NL, editor. New York: John Wiley; 1982. Intraclass correlation coefficient; pp. 213–217.
    1. Klevens J, Trick WE, Kee R, Angulo F, Garcia D, Sadowski LS. Concordance in the measurement of quality of life and health indicators between two methods of computer-assisted interviews: self-administered and by telephone. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1179–1186. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9862-2.
    1. Feveile H, Olsen O, Hogh A. A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: response patterns in a survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-27.
    1. Dillman DA, Sangster RL, Tarnai J, Rockwood TH. Understanding differences in people’s answers to telephone and mail surveys. New Dir Eval. 1996;1996:45–61. doi: 10.1002/ev.1034.
    1. Duncan P, Reker D, Kwon S, Lai SM, Studenski S, Perera S, Alfrey C, Marquez J. Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Med Care. 2005;43:507–515. doi: 10.1097/.
    1. Aitken JF, Youl PH, Janda M, Elwood M, Ring IT, Lowe JB. Comparability of skin screening histories obtained by telephone interviews and mailed questionnaires: a randomized crossover study. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160:598–604. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh263.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel