Validation Study of an Electronic Method of Condensed Outcomes Tools Reporting in Orthopaedics

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments are a vital source of data for evaluating the efficacy of medical treatments. Historically, outcomes instruments have been designed, validated, and implemented as paper-based questionnaires. The collection of paper-based outcomes information may result in patients becoming fatigued as they respond to redundant questions. This problem is exacerbated when multiple PRO measures are provided to a single patient. In addition, the management and analysis of data collected in paper format involves labor-intensive processes to score and render the data analyzable. Computer-based outcomes systems have the potential to mitigate these problems by reformatting multiple outcomes tools into a single, user-friendly tool.

The study aimed to determine whether the electronic outcomes system presented produces results comparable with the test–retest correlations reported for the corresponding orthopedic paper-based outcomes instruments.

The study is designed as a crossover study based on consecutive orthopaedic patients arriving at one of two designated orthopedic knee clinics.

Patients were assigned to complete either a paper or a computer-administered questionnaire based on a similar set of questions (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, International Knee Documentation Committee form, 36-Item Short Form survey, version 1, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale). Each patient completed the same surveys using the other instrument, so that all patients had completed both paper and electronic versions. Correlations between the results from the two modes were studied and compared with test–retest data from the original validation studies.

The original validation studies established test–retest reliability by computing correlation coefficients for two administrations of the paper instrument. Those correlation coefficients were all in the range of 0.7 to 0.9, which was deemed satisfactory. The present study computed correlation coefficients between the paper and electronic modes of administration. These correlation coefficients demonstrated similar results with an overall value of 0.86.

On the basis of the correlation coefficients, the electronic application of commonly used knee outcome scores compare variably to the traditional paper variants with a high rate of test–retest correlation. This equivalence supports the use of the condensed electronic outcomes system and validates comparison of scores between electronic and paper modes.

• References

• 1 Value-based purchasing: a strategic overview for health care industry stakeholders. . Updated 2011, Accessed May 2013. Available at: http://www.deloitte.com/us/valuebasedpurchasing
  Google Scholar
• 2 Suk M, Hanson BP, Norvell D, Helfet D. The purpose of patient-reported outcomes. In: Musculoskeletal Outcomes Measurements and Instruments. AO Foundation, ed. Switzerland Thieme: 2009:880.
  Google Scholar
• 3 Basch E, Bennett A, Pietanza MC. Use of patient-reported outcomes to improve the predictive accuracy of clinician-reported adverse events. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103 (24) 1808-1810
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Basch E, Jia X, Heller G , et al. Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101 (23) 1624-1632
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Khanna G, Singh JA, Pomeroy DL, Gioe TJ. Comparison of patient-reported and clinician-assessed outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (20) e117-e117 , 1, 7
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Haffer SC, Bowen SE. Measuring and improving health outcomes in Medicare: the Medicare HOS program. Health Care Financ Rev 2004; 25 (4) 1-3
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 O'Connor PJ, Bodkin NL, Fradkin J , et al. Diabetes performance measures: current status and future directions. Diabetes Care 2011; 34 (7) 1651-1659
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 OBERD 2012. Accessed May 2013. Available at: http://www.oberd.com/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998; 28 (2) 88-96
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Higgins LD, Taylor MK, Park D , et al; International Knee Documentation Committee. Reliability and validity of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form. Joint Bone Spine 2007; 74 (6) 594-599
  Google Scholar
• 11 Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Garratt AM, Coutts A, Russell IT. SF 36 health survey questionnaire: I. Reliability in two patient based studies. Qual Health Care 1994; 3 (4) 180-185
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y, Rodkey WG, Kocher MS, Steadman JR. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (5) 890-897
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD , et al; ISPOR ePRO Task Force. 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 Health 2009; 12 (4) 419-429
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 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 (2) 322-333
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar