Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-08-2015 | Review

Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures

Auteurs: Niloufar Campbell, Faraz Ali, Andrew Y. Finlay, Sam S. Salek

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Aim

Electronic formats (ePROs) of paper-based patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be validated before they can be reliably used. This review aimed to examine studies investigating measurement equivalence between ePROs and their paper originals to identify methodologies used and to determine the extent of such validation.

Methods

Three databases (OvidSP, Web of Science and PubMed) were searched using a set of keywords. Results were examined for compliance with inclusion criteria. Articles or abstracts that directly compared screen-based electronic versions of PROs with their validated paper-based originals, with regard to their measurement equivalence, were included. Publications were excluded if the only instruments reported were stand-alone visual analogue scales or interactive voice response formats. Papers published before 2007 were excluded, as a previous meta-analysis examined papers published before this time.

Results

Fifty-five studies investigating 79 instruments met the inclusion criteria. 53 % of the 79 instruments studied were condition specific. Several instruments, such as the SF-36, were reported in more than one publication. The most frequently reported formats for ePROs were Web-based versions. In 78 % of the publications, there was evidence of equivalence or comparability between the two formats as judged by study authors. Of the 30 publications that provided preference data, 87 % found that overall participants preferred the electronic format.

Conclusions

When examining equivalence between paper and electronic versions of PROs, formats are usually judged by authors to be equivalent. Participants prefer electronic formats. This literature review gives encouragement to the further widespread development and use of ePROs.
vorige artikel Testing parent dyad interchangeability in the parent proxy-report of PedsQL™ 4.0: a differential item functioning analysis
volgende artikel Validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) in individuals with Huntington disease (HD)
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). (2009). Guidance for industry—patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring: Food and Drug Administration.
2.
Leidy, N. K., & Vernon, M. (2008). Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes: content validity and qualitative research in a changing clinical trial environment. Pharmacoeconomics, 26(5), 363–370.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Marshall, S., Haywood, K., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006). Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: A structured review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 12(5), 559–568.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Lee, S. J., Kavanaugh, A., & Lenert, L. (2007). Electronic and computer-generated patient questionnaires in standard care. Best Practice and Research Clinical Rheumatology, 21(4), 637–647.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322–333.PubMedCrossRef
7.
8.
9.
Salaffi, F., Gasparini, S., & Grassi, W. (2009). The use of computer touch-screen technology for the collection of the patient-reported outcome data in rheumatoid arthritis: Comparison to standardised patient questionnaires. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 27(3), 459–468.PubMed
10.
MacKenzie, H., Thavaneswaran, A., Chandran, V., & Gladman, D. D. (2011). Patient-reported outcome in psoriatic arthritis: A comparison of web-based versus paper-completed questionnaires. The Journal of Rheumatology, 38(12), 2619–2624.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Wu, R. C., Thorpe, K., Math, M., Ross, H., Micevski, V., Marquez, C., Straus, S. E. (2009). Comparing administration of questionnaires via the Internet to pen-and-paper in patients with heart failure: Randomised controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research (Online), 11(1). http://​www.​jmir.​org/​2009/​1/​e3/​.​ Accessed 1 May 2014.
12.
Juniper, E. F., Riis, B., & Juniper, B. A. (2007). Development and validation of an electronic version of the Rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire. Allergy, 62(9), 1091–1093.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Ring, A. E., Cheong, K. A., Watkins, C. L., Meddis, D., Cella, D., & Harper, P. G. (2008). A randomised study of electronic diary versus paper and pencil collection of patient-reported outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 1(2), 105–113.CrossRef
14.
Juniper, E. F., Langlands, J. M., & Juniper, B. A. (2009). Patients may respond differently to paper and electronic versions of the same questionnaires. Respiratory Medicine, 103(6), 932–934.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Naus, M. J., Philipp, L. M., & Samsi, M. (2009). From paper to pixels: A comparison of paper and computer formats in psychological assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 1–7.CrossRef
16.
Ribeiro, C., Moreira, L., Silveira, A., Silva, I., Gestal, J., & Vasconcelos, C. (2010). Development and use of touch-screen computer-assisted self-interview in Portuguese patients with chronic immune disease: Evaluation of an electronic version of SF-36v2. Acta Reumatológica Portuguesa, 35(2), 208–214.PubMed
17.
Matthew, A. G., Currie, K. L., Irvine, J., Ritvo, P., Mina, D. S., Jamnicky, L., Nam, R., Trachtenberg, J. (2007). Serial personal digital assistant data capture of health-related quality of life: A randomised controlled trial in a prostate cancer clinic. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (Online), 5(38). http://​www.​hqlo.​com/​content/​5/​1/​38.​ Accessed 30 April 2014.
18.
Schefte, D. B., & Hetland, M. L. (2010). 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 activity index, function index, the health assessment questionnaire and visual analogue scales in comparison with paper versions. Rheumatology, 49(1), 99–104.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Handa, V. L., Barber, M. D., Young, S. B., Aronson, M. P., Morse, A., & Cundiff, G. W. (2008). Paper versus web-based administration of the pelvic floor distress inventory 20 and the pelvic floor impact questionnaire 7. International Urogynecology Journal, 19(10), 1331–1335.CrossRef
20.
Swartz, R. J., Moor, C. D., Cook, K. F., Fouladi, R. T., Basen-Engquist, K., Eng, C., & Taylor, C. L. C. (2007). Mode effects in the center for epidemiological studies depression (CES-D) scale: Personal digital assistant versus paper and pencil administration. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 803–813.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Carlbring, P., Brunt, S., Bohman, S., Austin, D., Richards, J., Öst, L.-G., & Andersson, G. (2007). Internet versus paper and pencil administration of questionnaires commonly used in panic/agoraphobia research. Computers in Human Behaviour, 23(3), 1421–1434.CrossRef
22.
Clayer, M., & Davis, A. (2011). Can the Toronto extremity salvage score produce reliable results when used online? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 469(6), 1750–1756.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
23.
Frennered, K., Hägg, O., & Wessberg, P. (2010). Validity of a computer touch-screen questionnaire system in back patients. Spine, 35(6), 697–703.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Oliveira, A., Ferreira, P. L., Antunes, B., & Pimentel, F. L. (2011). OnQol: Electronic device to capture QoL data in oncology: Difference between patients 65 years or older and patients younger than 65 years of age. Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 2(4), 253–258.CrossRef
25.
Saunders, G., Forsline, A., & Jacobs, P. (2007). The Attitudes towards Loss of Hearing Questionnaire (ALHQ): A comparison of paper and electronic formats. The Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18(1), 66–77.CrossRef
26.
Silveira, A., Gonçalves, J., Sequeira, T., Ribeiro, C., Lopes, C., Monteiro, E., & Pimentel, F. L. (2011). Computer-based quality-of-life monitoring in head and neck cancer patients: A validation model using the EORTC-QLQ C30 and EORTC-H&N35 Portuguese PC-software version. Acta Médica Portuguesa, 24(S2), 347–354.PubMed
27.
Wright, E. P., Kiely, M., Johnston, C., Smith, A. B., Cull, A., & Selby, P. J. (2005). Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess social difficulties in routine oncology practice. Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 373–386.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Beaumont, J. L., Victorson, D., Su, J., Baker, C. L., Wortman, K., Shah, H., & Cella, D. (2011). Examining web equivalence and risk factor sensitivity of the COPD Population Screener. Value in Health, 14(4), 506–512.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Bernstein, A. N., Levinson, A. W., Hobbs, A. R., Lavery, H. J., & Samadi, D. B. (2013). Validation of online administration of the sexual health inventory for men. The Journal of Urology, 189(4), 1456–1461.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Bruce, B., & Fries, J. F. (2011). Internet versus mailed administration of the health assessment questionnaire disability index. 63(10), pp. S1–S1 256.
31.
Chang, Y-J., Chang, C-H., Peng, C-L., Wu, H-C., Lin, H-C., Wang, J-Y., Li, T-C., Yeh, Y-C., Liang, W-M. (2014). Measurement equivalence and feasibility of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: paper-and-pencil versus touch-screen administration. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (Online), 12(23). http://​www.​hqlo.​com/​content/​12/​1/​23.​ Accessed 29 April 2014.
32.
Chen, H-L., Tien, S-W., Shih, C-C. (2011). Paper questionnaire versus Web questionnaire for clinical research impact using the short form of the UDI-6, HQ-7, PISQ-12. International Conference on Engineering and Business Management (EBM2011), 1–6, pp. 1293–1297.
33.
Chen, T-h, Li, L., Sigle, J. M., Du, Y.-P., Wang, H.-M., & Lei, J. (2007). Crossover randomised controlled trial of the electronic version of the Chinese SF-36. Journal of Zheijang University Science B, 8(8), 604–608.CrossRef
34.
Chen, W.-C., Wang, J.-D., Hwang, J.-S., Chen, C.-C., Wu, C.-H., & Yao, G. (2009). Can the web-form WHOQOL-BREF be an alternative to the paper-form? Social Indicators Research, 94(1), 97–114.CrossRef
35.
Chen, T-h, & Li, L. (2010). Pilot study of equivalence between the electronic and paper version of the Chinese SF-36. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(2), 151–161.CrossRef
36.
Dalal, A. A., Nelson, L., Gilligan, T., McLeod, L., Lewis, S., & De Muro-Mercon, C. (2011). Evaluating patient-reported outcome measurement comparability between paper and alternative versions, using the lung function questionnaire as an example. Value in Health, 14(5), 712–720.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Dinkel, A., Berg, P., Pirker, C., Geinitz, H., Sehlen, S., Emrich, M., et al. (2010). Routine psychosocial distress screening in radiotherapy: implementation and evaluation of a computerised procedure. British Journal of Cancer, 103, 1489–1495.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
38.
Gudbergsen, H., Bartels, E. M., Krusager, P., Waehrens, E. E., Christensen, R., Danneskoild-Samsöe, B., Bliddal, H. (2011). Test-retest of computerised health status questionnaires frequently used in the monitoring of knee osteoarthritis: a randomised crossover trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (Online), 12(190). http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1471-2474/​12/​190.​ Accessed 29 April 2014.
39.
Hedman, E., Ljótsson, B., Rück, C., Furmark, T., Carlbring, P., Lindefors, N., & Andersson, G. (2010). Internet administration of self-report measures commonly used in research on social anxiety disorder: A psychometric evaluation. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26(4), 736–740.CrossRef
40.
Heiberg, T., Kvien, T. K., Dale, Ø., Mowinckel, P., Aanerud, G. J., Songe-Møller, A. B., et al. (2007). Daily health status registration (patient diary) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A comparison between personal digital assistant and paper-pencil format. Arthritis Care & Research, 57(3), 454–460.CrossRef
41.
Holländare, F., Andersson, G., Engström, I. (2010). A comparison of psychometric properties between Internet and paper versions of two depression instruments (BDI-II and MADRS-S) administered to clinic patients. Journal of Medical Internet Research (Online), 12(5). http://​www.​jmir.​org/​2010/​5/​e49/​.​ Accessed 1 May 2014.
42.
Hollen, P. J., Gralla, R. J., Stewart, J. A., Meharchand, J. M., Wierzbicki, R., & Leighl, N. (2013). Can a computerised format replace a paper form in PRO and HRQL evaluation? Psychometric testing of the computer-assisted LCSS instrument (eLCSS-QL). Supportive Care in Cancer, 21(1), 165–172.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Howell, R. T., Rodzon, K. S., Kurai, M., & Sanchez, A. H. (2010). A validation of well-being and happiness surveys for administration via the Internet. Behaviour Research Methods, 42(3), 775–784.CrossRef
44.
Lalanne, C., Herrmann, S., Armstrong, A. R., Cheung-Lung, C., Schwartz, Y., Chassany, O., & Duracinsky, M. (2013). Paper-based and electronic assessment of health-related quality of life specific HIV disease: A reliability study with the PROQOL-HIV questionnaire. Value in Health, 16(7), A362.CrossRef
45.
Lee, E.-H. (2009). Touch-screen computerised quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer. Asian Nursing Research, 3(1), 41–48.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Lee, E.-H. (2009). Computerised measurement for asthma-specific quality of life: Comparison with a conventional paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Journal of Korean Academy Nursing, 39(6), 781–787.CrossRef
47.
48.
49.
50.
Olajos-Clow, J., Minard, J., Szpiro, K., Juniper, E. F., Turcotte, S., Jiang, X., et al. (2010). Validation of an electronic version of the Mini Asthma quality of life questionnaire. Respiratory Medicine, 104(5), 658–667.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Oliveira, A., Ferreira, P. L., Antunes, B., & Pimentel, F. L. (2010). Quality of life in oncology: Electronic device to collect data. Acta Médica Portuguesa, 23(6), 1017–1024.PubMed
52.
Parnell, B. A., Dunivan, G. C., Connolly, A., Jannelli, M. L., Wells, E. C., & Geller, E. J. (2011). Validation of web-based administration of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12). International Urogynecology Journal, 22(3), 357–361.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Raat, H., Mangunkusumo, R. T., Landgraf, J. M., Kloek, G., & Brug, J. (2007). Feasibility, reliability and validity of adolescent health status measurement by the Child Health Questionnaire Child Form (CHQ-CF): Internet administration compared with the standard paper version. Quality of Life Research, 16(4), 675–685.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
54.
Ribeiro, C., Silveira, A., Silva, I., Ribeiro, C., Gestal, J., & Vasconcelos, C. (2011). Computerised information-gathering in patients with lupus: An initial evaluation of an electronic version of the short form 36 version 2. Lupus, 20(4), 402.
55.
Richter, J. G., Becker, A., Koch, T., Nixdorf, M., Willers, R., Monser, R., et al. (2008). Self-assessments of patients via Tablet PC in routine patient care: Comparison with standardised paper questionnaires. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 67(12), 1739–1741.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Sage, J. M., Ali, A., Farrell, J., Huggins, J. L., Covert, K., Eskra, D., et al. (2012). Moving into the electronic age: Validation of rheumatology self-assessment questionnaires on tablet computers. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 64(S10), S1102.
57.
Salaffi, F., Gasparini, S., Ciapetti, A., Gutierrez, M., & Grassi, W. (2013). Usability of an innovative and interactive electronic system for collection of patient-reported data in axial spondyloarthritis: Comparison with the traditional paper-administered format. Rheumatology, 52(11), 2062–2070.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Schemmann, D., Rudolph, J., Haas, H., & Müller-Stromberg, J. (2013). Validation and patient acceptance of a touch tablet version of the iHOT-12 questionnaire. Arthroscopy, 29(12), E188.CrossRef
59.
Sjöstrom, M., Stenlund, H., Johansson, S., Umefjord, G., & Samuelsson, E. (2012). Stress urinary incontinence and quality of life: A reliability study of a condition-specific instrument in paper and web-based versions. Neurology and Urodynamics, 31(8), 1242–1246.CrossRef
60.
Twiss, J., McKenna, S., Graham, J. E., Swetz, K. M., Sloan, J., & Gomberg-Maitland, M. (2013). Assessing measurement equivalence of different forms of administration of the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) using Rasch analysis. Value in Health, 16(7), A606.CrossRef
61.
Varni, J. W., Limbers, C. A., Burwinkle, T. M., Bryant, W. P., & Wilson, D. P. (2008). The ePedsQL™ in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes: Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ Internet administration. Diabetes Care, 31(4), 672–677.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Vinney, L. A., Grade, J. D., & Connor, N. P. (2012). Feasibility of using a handheld electronic device for the collection of patient reported outcomes data from children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 45(1), 12–19.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
63.
Young, N. L., Varni, J. W., Snider, L., McCormick, A., Sawatzky, B., Scott, M., et al. (2009). The Internet is valid and reliable for child-report: An example using the Activities scale for kids (ASK) and the Pediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(3), 314–320.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Zimmerman, M., & Martinez, J. H. (2012). Web-based assessment of depression in patients treated in clinical practice: Reliability, validity and patient acceptance. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 73(3), 333–338.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Equivalence of electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome measures
Auteurs
Niloufar Campbell
Faraz Ali
Andrew Y. Finlay
Sam S. Salek
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0937-3

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2015

Quality of Life Research 8/2015 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Illness perceptions mediate the relationship between bowel symptom severity and health-related quality of life in IBS patients

Erratum

Erratum to: 21st Annual Conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research

OriginalPaper

Testing item response theory invariance of the standardized Quality-of-life Disease Impact Scale (QDIS®) in acute coronary syndrome patients: differential functioning of items and test

OriginalPaper

Psychometric properties of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in multiple sclerosis

OriginalPaper

The correlation of the “Walking Estimated-Limitation Calculated by History” (WELCH) questionnaire with treadmill maximal walking time is not impaired by age, in patients with claudication

OriginalPaper

Overall performance of Oort’s procedure for response shift detection at item level: a pilot simulation study