Abstract
Background: The questionnaires used in clinical research have often been developed and validated using paper, and in such cases it is necessary to show that the electronic versions are equivalent to the originals.
Objective: To determine if electronic versions of questionnaires assessing severity and impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are equivalent to the original paper versions.
Methods: Patients (n = 43; 31 female) aged 32–83 years (25 aged <60 years) took part in a single session during which they completed paper and electronic assessments in randomized order, with an interval of 45 minutes between the two modes. Electronic assessments were set up on a Palm® TX handheld device. Assessments included measures of pain, fatigue, disability, and health status.
Results: Scores were similar between the two modes. All effect sizes for electronic-paper differences were <0.2, and there was no overall tendency for one mode to show higher scores than the other. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from 0.72 to 0.96, and were generally similar to reported retest reliabilities of the scales in their paper versions. The Disability Index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ-DI) showed an ICC of 0.96. ICCs for the EQ-5D health status scale were utility: 0.79; profile: 0.91; visual analog scale: 0.75. Most patients reported that both modes were easy to use. In general, patients preferred the electronic version over the paper, and this was true for the older as well as the younger patients.
Conclusions: Electronic versions of questionnaires assessing severity and impact of RA provide data that correspond closely to those of paper originals, are easy to use, and are acceptable to patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Drummond HE, Ghosh S, Ferguson A, et al. Electronic quality of life questionnaires: a comparison of pen-based electronic questionnaires with conventional paper in a gastrointestinal study. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 21–6
Crawley JA, Kleinman L, Dominitz J. User preferences for computer administration of quality of life instruments. Drug Inf J 2000; 34: 137–44
Ring AE, Cheong KA, Watkins CL, et al. A randomized study of electronic diary versus paper and pencil collection of patient-reported outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Patient 2008; 1(2): 105–13
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): 322–33
Shields A, Gwaltney C, Tiplady B, et al. Grasping the FDA’s PRO guidance. Appl Clin Trials 2006; 15(8): 69–72
Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, et al. 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): 419–29
Cohen SB, Strand V, Aguilar D, et al. Patientversus physician-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (anakinra) therapy. Rheumatology 2004; 43(6): 704–11
EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16(3): 199–208
Hurst NP, Jobanputra P, Hunter M, et al. Validity of Euroqol — a generic health status instrument — in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Economic and Health Outcomes Research Group. Br J Rheumatol 1994; 33(7): 655–62
Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, et al. Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980; 23(2): 137–45
Ramey DA, Fries JF, Singh G. The Health Assessment Questionnaire 1995: status and review. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1996: 227–37
Bruce B, Fries JF. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005; 23(5 Suppl. 39): S14–8
Ramachandran S, Lundy J, Coons S. Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and touch-screen versions of the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS). Qual Life Res 2008; 17(8): 1117–20
Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1994; 23(2): 129–38
Melzack R. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 1987; 30(2): 191–7
Melzack R. The McGill pain questionnaire: from description to measurement. Anesthesiology 2005; 103(1): 199–202
Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, et al. Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage 1997; 13(2): 63–74
Mallinson T, Cella D, Cashy J, et al. Giving meaning to measure: linking self-reported fatigue and function to performance of everyday activities. J Pain Symptom Manage 2006; 31(3): 229–41
Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473–83
Mystakidou K, Mendoza T, Tsilika E, et al. Greek brief pain inventory: validation and utility in cancer pain. Oncology 2001; 60(1): 35–42
Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35(11): 1095–108
Spritzer K. SAS code for scoring 36-item health survey version 2.0 standard form (not acute!) [online]. Available from URL: http://gim.med.ucla.edu/FacultyPages/Hays/UTILS/ sf36v2-4-public.sas [Accessed 2007 Sep 4]
Conover WJ, Iman R. Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Stat 1981; 35: 124–9
McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996; 1(1): 30–46
Vacha-Haase T, Thompson B. How to estimate and interpret various effect sizes. J Couns Psychol 2004; 51(4): 473–81
Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Dziedzic K, et al. Generic measures of health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology 2002; 41(12): 1380–7
Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol 1997; 36(5): 551–9
Kirwan JR, Reeback JS. Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire modified to assess disability in British patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1986; 25(2): 206–9
Sullivan FM, Eagers RC, Lynch K, et al. Assessment of disability caused by rheumatic diseases in general practice. Ann Rheum Dis 1987; 46(8): 598–600
Ekdahl C, Eberhardt K, Andersson SI, et al. Assessing disability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: use of a Swedish version of the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Scand J Rheumatol 1988; 17(4): 263–71
Guillemin F, Briancon S, Pourel J. Validity and discriminant ability of the HAQ Functional Index in early rheumatoid arthritis. Disabil Rehabil 1992; 14(2): 71–7
Harper R, Brazier JE, Waterhouse JC, et al. Comparison of outcome measures for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient setting. Thorax 1997; 52(10): 879–87
Fransen M, Edmonds J. Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999; 38(9): 807–13
König HH, Ulshöfer A, Gregor M, et al. Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002; 14(11): 1205–15
Bushnell DM, Reilly MC, Galani C, et al. Validation of electronic data capture of the Irritable Bowel Syndrome — Quality of Life Measure, the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for Irritable Bowel Syndrome and the EuroQol. Value Health 2006; 9(2): 98–105
Daut RL, Cleeland CS, Flanery RC. Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain 1983; 17(2): 197–210
Ware Jr JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine 2000; 25(24): 3130–9
Hagell P, Höglund A, Reimer J, et al. Measuring fatigue in Parkinson’s disease: a psychometric study of two brief generic fatigue questionnaires. J Pain Symptom Manage 2006; 32(5): 420–32
Strand LI, Ljunggren AE, Bogen B, et al. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire as an outcome measure: test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change. Eur J Pain 2008; 12(7): 917–25
Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Homa K, et al. Computerized questionnaires and the quality of survey data. Spine 2002; 27(16): 1797–801
Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB, et al. Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17(3): 998–1007
Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Parasuraman B. Electronic versus paper questionnaires: a further comparison in persons with asthma. J Asthma 2003; 40(7): 751–62
Cook MR, Gerkovich MM, Graham C, et al. Effects of the nicotine patch on performance during the first week of smoking cessation. Nicotine Tob Res 2003; 5(2): 169–80
Gaertner J, Elsner F, Pollmann-Dahmen K, et al. Electronic pain diary: a randomized crossover study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2004; 28(3): 259–67
Kvien TKK, Mowinckel P, Heiberg T, et al. Performance of health status measures with a pen-based personal digital assistant. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64(10): 1480–4
Richter JG, Becker A, Koch T, et al. Self-assessments of patients via tablet PC in routine patient care: comparison with standardised paper questionnaires. Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67: 1739–41
Yarnold PR, Stewart MJ, Stille FC, et al. Assessing functional status of elderly adults via microcomputer. Percept Mot Skills 1996; 82(2): 689–90
Begg A, Drummond G, Tiplady B. Assessment of post-surgical recovery after discharge using a pen computer diary. Anaesthesia 2003; 58(11): 1101–5
Kurt R, Bogner HR, Straton JB, et al. Computer-assisted assessment of depression and function in older primary care patients. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2004; 73(2): 165–71
Millsopp L, Frackleton S, Lowe D, et al. A feasibility study of computer-assisted health-related quality of life data collection in patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 35(8): 761–4
Acknowledgments
This study was financially supported by AstraZeneca. Robert Carrington and Clare Battersby are employed by, and own shares in, AstraZeneca, who commissioned the clinical study on which this article is based. Brian Tiplady is employed by P RO Consulting, a division of invivodata inc., the study sponsor; owns shares in AstraZeneca; has acted as consultant for various companies; and will receive royalties from a forthcoming book on ePRO. Professor Stuart Ralston acts as a consultant for Novartis and Merck Pharmaceuticals.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tiplady, B., Goodman, K., Cummings, G. et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Patient-Patient-Centered-Outcome-Res 3, 133–143 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2165/11535590-000000000-00000
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11535590-000000000-00000