BACKGROUND: Increasing use of self reported health status in clinical practice and research, as well as patient appreciation of monitoring fluctuations of health over time, suggest a need for more frequent collection of data. Electronic use of health status measures in the follow up of patients is a possible way to achieve this. OBJECTIVE: To compare self reported health status measures in a personal digital assistant (PDA) version and a paper/pencil version for test-retest reliability, agreement between scores, and feasibility. METHODS: 30 patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (mean age 61.6 years, range 49.8 to 70.0; mean disease duration, 16.7 years; 63% female; 67% rheumatoid factor positive; 46.6% on disease modifying antirheumatic drugs) completed self reported health status measures (pain, fatigue, and global health on visual analogue scales (VAS), rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index, modified health assessment questionnaire, SF-36) in a conventional paper based questionnaire version and on a PDA (HP iPAQ, model h5450). Completion was repeated after five to seven days. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was similar, as evaluated by the Bland-Altman approach, the coefficient of variation, and intraclass correlation coefficients. The scores showed acceptable agreement, but with a slight tendency to higher scores on VAS with the PDA than the paper/pencil version. No significant differences were seen for measures of feasibility (time to complete, satisfaction score), but 65.5% preferred PDA, 20.7% preferred paper, and 13.8% had no preference. CONCLUSIONS: The clinimetric performance of paper/pencil versions of self reported health status measures was similar to an electronic version, using an inexpensive PDA.
BACKGROUND: Increasing use of self reported health status in clinical practice and research, as well as patient appreciation of monitoring fluctuations of health over time, suggest a need for more frequent collection of data. Electronic use of health status measures in the follow up of patients is a possible way to achieve this. OBJECTIVE: To compare self reported health status measures in a personal digital assistant (PDA) version and a paper/pencil version for test-retest reliability, agreement between scores, and feasibility. METHODS: 30 patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (mean age 61.6 years, range 49.8 to 70.0; mean disease duration, 16.7 years; 63% female; 67% rheumatoid factor positive; 46.6% on disease modifying antirheumatic drugs) completed self reported health status measures (pain, fatigue, and global health on visual analogue scales (VAS), rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index, modified health assessment questionnaire, SF-36) in a conventional paper based questionnaire version and on a PDA (HP iPAQ, model h5450). Completion was repeated after five to seven days. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was similar, as evaluated by the Bland-Altman approach, the coefficient of variation, and intraclass correlation coefficients. The scores showed acceptable agreement, but with a slight tendency to higher scores on VAS with the PDA than the paper/pencil version. No significant differences were seen for measures of feasibility (time to complete, satisfaction score), but 65.5% preferred PDA, 20.7% preferred paper, and 13.8% had no preference. CONCLUSIONS: The clinimetric performance of paper/pencil versions of self reported health status measures was similar to an electronic version, using an inexpensive PDA.
Authors: N Bellamy; J Kirwan; M Boers; P Brooks; V Strand; P Tugwell; R Altman; K Brandt; M Dougados; M Lequesne Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 1997-04 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: D T Felson; J J Anderson; M Boers; C Bombardier; M Chernoff; B Fried; D Furst; C Goldsmith; S Kieszak; R Lightfoot Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1993-06
Authors: Donald M Bushnell; Mona L Martin; Michael Scanlon; Techieh Chen; Dina Chau; Hema N Viswanathan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 4.147
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
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: Andrew G Matthew; Kristen L Currie; Paul Ritvo; Robert Nam; Michael E Nesbitt; Robin W Kalnin; John Trachtenberg Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 3.840