Literature DB >> 15275781

Electronic pain questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment.

Andrew J Cook1, David A Roberts, Michael D Henderson, Lisa C Van Winkle, Dania C Chastain, Robin J Hamill-Ruth.   

Abstract

Electronic questionnaires for pain assessment are becoming increasingly popular. There have been no published reports to establish the equivalence or psychometric properties of common pain questionnaires administered via desktop computers. This study compared responses to paper (P) and touch screen electronic (E) versions of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and Pain Disability Index (PDI), while examining the role of computer anxiety and experience, and evaluating patient acceptance. In a randomized, crossover design 189 chronic pain patients completed P and E versions of the SF-MPQ and PDI, and self-ratings of anxiety, experience, relative ease and preference. Psychometric properties were highly similar for P and E questionnaires. For the SF-MPQ, 60% or more of subjects gave equivalent responses on individual descriptors and PPI scale, with 80% rating within +/-1 point for an 11-point VAS. Correlations for the SF-MPQ scales ranged from 0.68 to 0.84. For the PDI, 60% or more of subjects responded within +/-1 point on individual questions, and the total score correlation was 0.67. Comparison of mean difference scores revealed no significant differences between modes for any of the questionnaire items or scores. Anxiety and experience scores showed no significant associations through correlations and high/low comparisons. Although nearly half of subjects reported no computer training, anxiety ratings were low, and considerably more subjects rated the E questionnaires as easier and preferred. Findings are consistent with test-retest reliability data, and support the validity and acceptance of electronic versions of the SF-MPQ and PDI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15275781     DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.04.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  27 in total

Review 1.  Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Claudia Rutherford; Daniel Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Holly Rice; Liam Gabb; Madeleine King
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Developing tailored instruments: item banking and computerized adaptive assessment.

Authors:  Jakob Bue Bjorner; Chih-Hung Chang; David Thissen; Bryce B Reeve
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Practical and philosophical issues surrounding a national item bank: if we build it will they come?

Authors:  Dennis A Revicki; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-04-28       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: an overview and practical examples.

Authors:  Matthias Rose; Andrea Bezjak
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  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

6.  Administer and collect medical questionnaires with Google documents: a simple, safe, and free system.

Authors:  Rakib U Rayhan; Yin Zheng; Ebsan Uddin; Christian Timbol; Oluwatoyin Adewuyi; James N Baraniuk
Journal:  Appl Med Inform       Date:  2013

7.  Data equivalency of an interactive voice response system for home assessment of back pain and function.

Authors:  William S Shaw; Santosh K Verma
Journal:  Pain Res Manag       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.037

8.  In-clinic use of electronic pain diaries: barriers of implementation among pain physicians.

Authors:  Lisa D Marceau; Carol L Link; Lauren D Smith; Sarah J Carolan; Robert N Jamison
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 3.612

9.  Can End-of-day reports replace momentary assessment of pain and fatigue?

Authors:  Joan E Broderick; Joseph E Schwartz; Stefan Schneider; Arthur A Stone
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2008-12-13       Impact factor: 5.820

10.  High Level of Agreement between Electronic and Paper Mode of Administration of a Thyroid-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome, ThyPRO.

Authors:  Sofie Larsen Rasmussen; Lars Rejnmark; Eva Ebbehøj; Ulla Feldt-Rasmussen; Åse Krogh Rasmussen; Jakob Bue Bjorner; Torquil Watt
Journal:  Eur Thyroid J       Date:  2016-03-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.