Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1110-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)11136_2015_1110_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims. MD: US Department of Health & Human Support Food & Drug Administration.
Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205. CrossRef
Puhan, M. A., Ahuja, A., Van Natta, M. L., Ackatz, L. E., & Meinert, C. (2011). Interviewer versus self-administered health-related quality of life questionnaires—Does it matter? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1189-1130.
Kmet, L., Lee, R., & Cook, L. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Health Technology Assessment, 13, 1–294.
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Oxford: Wiley. CrossRef
Wijndaele, K., Matton, L., Duvigneaud, N., Lefevre, J., Duquet, W., Thomis, M., et al. (2007). Reliability, equivalence and respondent preference of computerized versus paper-and-pencil mental health questionnaires. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1958–1970. CrossRef
Rodriguez, H. P., von Glahn, T., Rogers, W. H., Chang, H., Fanjiang, G., & Safran, D. G. (2006). Evaluating patients’ experiences with individual physicians: A randomized trial of mail, internet, and interactive voice response telephone administration of surveys. Medical Care, 44(2), 167–174. CrossRefPubMed
Rutherford, C., Nixon, J., Brown, J. M., Lamping, D. L., & Cano, S. J. (2014). Using mixed methods to select optimal mode of administration for a patient-reported outcome instrument for people with pressure ulcers. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(22), 1471–2288.
Shih, T., & Fan, X. (2007). Response rates and mode preferences in web-mail mixed-mode surveys: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Internet Science, 2, 59–82.
Caute, A., Northcott, S., Clarkson, L., Pring, T., & Hilari, K. (2012). Does mode of administration affect health-related quality-of-life outcomes after stroke? International Journal of Speechlanguage Pathology, 14(4), 329–337. CrossRef
Cerrada, C. J., Weinberg, J., Sherman, K. J., & Saper, R. B. (2014). Inter-method reliability of paper surveys and computer assisted telephone interviews in a randomized controlled trial of yoga for low back pain. BMC Research Notes, 7, 227. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-227. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Collins, F. E., & Jones, K. V. (2004). Investigating dissociation online: Validation of a web-based version of the dissociative experiences scale. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 5(1), 133–147. CrossRef
Grieve, R., & de Groot, H. T. (2011). Does online psychological test administration facilitate faking? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2386–2391. CrossRef
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 pelvic floor impact questionnaire 7. International Urogynecology Journal, 19(10), 1331–1335. CrossRef
Hauer, K., Yardley, L., Beyer, N., Kempen, G., Dias, N., Campbell, M., et al. (2010). Validation of the falls efficacy scale and falls efficacy scale international in geriatric patients with and without cognitive impairment: results of self-report and interview-based questionnaires. Gerontology, 56(2), 190–199. CrossRefPubMed
Hedman, E., Ljotsson, B., Ruck, 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 Behavior, 26(4), 736–740. CrossRef
Hedman, E., Ljotsson, B., Blom, K., Alaoui, S. E., Kraepelien, M., Ruck, C., et al. (2013). Telephone versus internet administration of self-report measures of social anxiety, depressive symptoms, and insomnia: Psychometric evaluation of a method to reduce the impact of missing data. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(10), 131–138. CrossRef
Hollandare, F., Andersson, G., & Engstrom, 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, 12(5), e49.
Lungenhausen, M., Lange, S., Maier, C., Schaub, C., Trampisch, H. J., & Endres. H. G. (2007). 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 Medical Research Methodology, 7(50). doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-50. PubMedCentralPubMed
Matthew, A. G., Currie, K. L., Irvine, J., Ritvo, P., Santa Mina, D., Jamnicky, L., et al. (2007). Serial personal digital assistant data capture of health-related quality of life: A randomized controlled trial in a prostate cancer clinic. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 5, 38. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
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
Salaffi, F., Gasparini, S., & Grassi, W. (2009). The use of computer touch-screen technology for the collection of patient-reported outcome data in rheumatoid arthritis: Comparison with standardized paper questionnaires. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 27(3), 459–468. PubMed
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. CrossRefPubMed
Sikorski, A., Given, C. W., Given, B., Jeon, S., & You, M. (2009). Differential symptom reporting by mode of administration of the assessment: Automated voice response system versus a live telephone interview. Medical Care, 47(8), 866–874. CrossRef
Sousa, P. C., Mendes, F. M., Imparato, J. C., & Ardenghi, T. M. (2009). Differences in responses to the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP14) used as a questionnaire or in an interview. Pesquisa Odontologica Brasileira—Brazilian Oral Research, 23(4), 358–364.
Suris, A., Borman, P. D., Lind, L., & Kashner, T. M. (2007). Aggression, impulsivity, and health functioning in a veteran population: Equivalency and test-retest reliability of computerized and paper-and-pencil administrations. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 97–110. CrossRef
Swartz, R. J., de Moor, C., Cook, K. F., Fouladi, R. T., Basen-Engquist, K., Eng, C., & Taylor, C. L. C. (2007). Mode effects in the center for epidemiologic studies depression (CES-D) scale: Personal digital assistant vs. paper and pencil administration. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 803–813. CrossRefPubMed
Tiplady, B., Goodman, K., Cummings, G., Lyle, D., Carrington, R., Battersby, C., & Ralston, S. H. (2010). Patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: Assessing the equivalence of electronic and paper data collection. The Patient: Patient Centered Outcomes Research, 3(3), 133–143. CrossRef
Weiler, K., Christ, A. M., Woodworth, G. G., Weiler, R. L., & Weiler, J. M. (2004). Quality of patient-reported outcome data captured using paper and interactive voice response diaries in an allergic rhinitis study: Is electronic data capture really better? Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 92(3), 335–339. CrossRef
Whitehead, L. (2011). Methodological issues in Internet-mediated research: A randomized comparison of internet versus mailed questionnaires. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e109.
Wu, L. T., Pan, J. J., Blazer, D. G., Tai, B., Brooner, R. K., Stitzer, M. L., et al. (2009). The construct and measurement equivalence of cocaine and opioid dependences: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(3), 114–123. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Yu, S. C., & Yu, M. N. (2007). Comparison of Internet-based and paper-based questionnaires in Taiwan using multisample invariance approach. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 501–507. CrossRef
- Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis
- Springer International Publishing