Literature DB >> 14626331

Electronic versus paper questionnaires: a further comparison in persons with asthma.

D M Bushnell1, M L Martin, B Parasuraman.   

Abstract

The use of electronic data capture (EDC) to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using validated questionnaires is increasing; however, it must be determined how data collected electronically correlate with the original mode of administration used in validation. Our objective was to compare paper and electronic administration of the standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ(S)), Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAQLQ(S)), and Pediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaire (PACQLQ). Using a crossover design, adults and children with asthma and caregivers of children with asthma were recruited from clinics. Subjects were asked to complete both forms of the appropriate HRQOL measures at enrollment and 24-48 hours later. In addition, 30 subjects from each group were asked to participate in a 1-week reproducibility assessment of the electronic versions of the three questionnaires. Psychometric properties were assessed for each of the EDC versions. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson correlations were calculated to compare EDC and paper versions. A total of 51 adults (mean age 37, 73% females), 52 children (mean age 13, 38% females), and 51 caregivers (mean age 43, 92% females) were evaluated. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for the overall score of each questionnaire was: 0.96 for the AQLQ(S) and the PAQLQ(S), and 0.92 for the PACQLQ. Overall ICCs comparing paper with EDC were: 0.96 for the AQLQ(S), 0.91 for the PAQLQ(S), and 0.82 for the PACQLQ. Pearson's correlations were identical. One-week reproducibility (ICC) of the EDC versions was: 0.88 for the AQLQ(S), 0.78 for the PAQLQ(S), and 0.85 for the PACQLQ. When asked which method subjects preferred, the electronic version was chosen by 69% of adults, 77% of children, and 73% of caregivers. Additionally, 14% of adults, 14% of children, and 18% of caregivers reported no difference in preference. As in previous studies comparing electronic with paper questionnaires, this study revealed statistical evidence to support the use of EDC of the AQLQ(S), PAQLQ(S), and PACQLQ for populations with asthma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14626331     DOI: 10.1081/jas-120023501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Asthma        ISSN: 0277-0903            Impact factor:   2.515


  25 in total

1.  Issues in the design of Internet-based systems for collecting patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  James B Jones; Claire F Snyder; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-08-01       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Cross-national comparability of the WHOQOL-BREF: a measurement invariance approach.

Authors:  Peter Theuns; Joeri Hofmans; Mehrdad Mazaheri; Frederik Van Acker; Jan L Bernheim
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and touch-screen versions of the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS).

Authors:  Sulabha Ramachandran; J Jason Lundy; Stephen Joel Coons
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-09-08       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Assessing the impact of non-severe hypoglycemic events and treatment in adults: development of the Treatment-Related Impact Measure-Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO).

Authors:  Meryl Brod; Lise Højbjerre; Donald M Bushnell; Charlotte Thim Hansen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-06-21       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Electronic and paper mode of data capture when assessing patient-reported outcomes in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Dorota T Kopycka-Kedzierawski; Rita Cacciato; Roslyn Hennessey; Cyril Meyerowitz; Mark S Litaker; Marc W Heft; Kimberly S Johnson; Stephanie C Reyes; James D Johnson; Camille T Baltuck; Gregg H Gilbert
Journal:  J Investig Clin Dent       Date:  2019-06-02

Review 6.  Asthma outcomes: quality of life.

Authors:  Sandra R Wilson; Cynthia S Rand; Michael D Cabana; Michael B Foggs; Jill S Halterman; Lynn Olson; William M Vollmer; Rosalind J Wright; Virginia Taggart
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 10.793

7.  Development and validation of the Treatment Related Impact Measure of Weight (TRIM-Weight).

Authors:  Meryl Brod; Mette Hammer; Nana Kragh; Suzanne Lessard; Donald M Bushnell
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2010-02-05       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  Assessing the burden of childhood asthma: validation of electronic versions of the Mini Pediatric and Pediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaires.

Authors:  Janice P Minard; Nicola J Thomas; Jennifer G Olajos-Clow; Nastasia V Wasilewski; Blaine Jenkins; Ann K Taite; Andrew G Day; M Diane Lougheed
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Feasibility and acceptance of electronic quality of life assessment in general practice: an implementation study.

Authors:  Anja Rogausch; Jörg Sigle; Anna Seibert; Sabine Thüring; Michael M Kochen; Wolfgang Himmel
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Understanding and assessing the impact of treatment in diabetes: the Treatment-Related Impact Measures for Diabetes and Devices (TRIM-Diabetes and TRIM-Diabetes Device).

Authors:  Meryl Brod; Mette Hammer; Torsten Christensen; Suzanne Lessard; Donald M Bushnell
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2009-09-09       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.