OBJECTIVES: To validate the WOMAC 3.1 in a touch screen computer format, which applies each question as a cartoon in writing and in speech (QUALITOUCH method), and to assess patient acceptance of the computer touch screen version. METHODS: The paper and computer formats of WOMAC 3.1 were applied in random order to 53 subjects with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The mean age of the subjects was 64 years (range 45 to 83), 60% were male, 53% were 65 years or older, and 53% used computers at home or at work. Agreement between formats was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Preferences were assessed with a supplementary questionnaire. RESULTS: ICCs between formats were 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.96) for pain; 0.94 (0.90 to 0.97) for stiffness, and 0.96 (0.94 to 0.98) for function. ICCs were similar in men and women, in subjects with or without previous computer experience, and in subjects below or above age 65. The computer format was found easier to use by 26% of the subjects, the paper format by 8%, and 66% were undecided. Overall, 53% of subjects preferred the computer format, while 9% preferred the paper format, and 38% were undecided. CONCLUSION: The computer format of the WOMAC 3.1 is a reliable assessment tool. Agreement between computer and paper formats was independent of computer experience, age, or sex. Thus the computer format may help improve patient follow up by meeting patients' preferences and providing immediate results.
OBJECTIVES: To validate the WOMAC 3.1 in a touch screen computer format, which applies each question as a cartoon in writing and in speech (QUALITOUCH method), and to assess patient acceptance of the computer touch screen version. METHODS: The paper and computer formats of WOMAC 3.1 were applied in random order to 53 subjects with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The mean age of the subjects was 64 years (range 45 to 83), 60% were male, 53% were 65 years or older, and 53% used computers at home or at work. Agreement between formats was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Preferences were assessed with a supplementary questionnaire. RESULTS: ICCs between formats were 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.96) for pain; 0.94 (0.90 to 0.97) for stiffness, and 0.96 (0.94 to 0.98) for function. ICCs were similar in men and women, in subjects with or without previous computer experience, and in subjects below or above age 65. The computer format was found easier to use by 26% of the subjects, the paper format by 8%, and 66% were undecided. Overall, 53% of subjects preferred the computer format, while 9% preferred the paper format, and 38% were undecided. CONCLUSION: The computer format of the WOMAC 3.1 is a reliable assessment tool. Agreement between computer and paper formats was independent of computer experience, age, or sex. Thus the computer format may help improve patient follow up by meeting patients' preferences and providing immediate results.
Authors: Thao Pham; Désirée Van Der Heijde; Marissa Lassere; Roy D Altman; Jennifer J Anderson; Nicholas Bellamy; Marc Hochberg; Lee Simon; Vibeke Strand; Thasia Woodworth; Maxime Dougados Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Paul R Fortin; John R Penrod; Ann E Clarke; Yvan St-Pierre; Lawrence Joseph; Patrick Bélisle; Matthew H Liang; Diane Ferland; Charlotte B Phillips; Nizar Mahomed; Michael Tanzer; Clement Sledge; Anne H Fossel; Jeffrey N Katz Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2002-12
Authors: Andreas Laupacis; Robert Bourne; Cecil Rorabeck; David Feeny; Peter Tugwell; Cindy Wong Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 5.284
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
Authors: Henrik Gudbergsen; Else M Bartels; Peter Krusager; Eva E Wæhrens; Robin Christensen; Bente Danneskiold-Samsøe; Henning Bliddal Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 2.362
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
Authors: Victoria L Handa; Matthew D Barber; Stephen B Young; Michael P Aronson; Abraham Morse; Geoffrey W Cundiff Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2008-05-17