Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

03-09-2015 | Special Section: PROs in Non-Standard Settings (by invitation only) | Uitgave 3/2016

Quality of Life Research 3/2016

Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis

Tijdschrift:
Quality of Life Research > Uitgave 3/2016
Auteurs:
Claudia Rutherford, Daniel Costa, Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Holly Rice, Liam Gabb, Madeleine King
Belangrijke opmerkingen

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1007/​s11136-015-1110-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Purpose

Technological advances in recent decades have led to the availability of new modes to administer patient-reported outcomes (PROs). To aid selecting optimal modes of administration (MOA), we undertook a systematic review to determine whether differences in bias (both size and direction) exist among modes.

Methods

We searched five electronic databases from 2004 (date of last comprehensive review on this topic) to April 2014, cross-referenced and searched reference lists. Studies that compared two or more MOA for a health-related PRO measure in adult samples were included. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria and extracted findings. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted using random-effects models.

Results

Of 5100 papers screened, 222 were considered potentially relevant and 56 met eligibility criteria. No evidence of bias was found for: (1) paper versus electronic self-complete; and (2) self-complete versus assisted MOA. Heterogeneity for paper versus electronic comparison was explained by type of construct (i.e. physical vs. psychological). Heterogeneity for self-completion versus assisted modes was in part explained by setting (clinic vs. home); the largest bias was introduced when assisted completion occurred in the clinic and follow-up was by self-completion (either electronic or paper) in the home.

Conclusions

Self-complete paper and electronic MOA can be used interchangeably for research in clinic and home settings. Self-completion and assisted completion produce equivalent scores overall, although heterogeneity may be induced by setting. These results support the use of mixed MOAs within a research study, which may be a useful strategy for reducing missing PRO data.

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:

BSL Podotherapeut Totaal

Binnen de bundel kunt u gebruik maken van boeken, tijdschriften, e-learnings, web-tv's en uitlegvideo's. BSL Podotherapeut Totaal is overal toegankelijk; via uw PC, tablet of smartphone.

Extra materiaal
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)
11136_2015_1110_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Literatuur
Over dit artikel

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2016

Quality of Life Research 3/2016 Naar de uitgave

Special Section: PROs in Non-Standard Settings (by invitation only)

Use of weekly assessment data to enhance evaluation of a subjective wellbeing intervention