Eun-Hyun Lee1. 1. Graduate School of Public Health, Ajou University, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, Korea. ehlee@ajou.ac.kr
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a computerized touch-screen version of the asthma-specific quality-of-life (cA-QOL) questionnaire against the conventional paper-and-pencil version (pA-QOL) for equivalence, time for completion, user preference, and ease of use. METHODS:A total of 261 patients were recruited. A randomized cross-over design was used. Patients in group A completed the cA-QOL first while waiting to see a physician, and completed the pA-QOL version after seeing the physician. Patients allocated in group B completed these questionnaires in the reverse order. The patients were asked questions about user preference and ease of use of the cA-QOL. The time taken to complete both versions of the questionnaire was measured. RESULTS: Weighted kappa coefficients of all items showed almost perfect agreement. The time required to complete the pA-QOL is faster than the time for cA-QOL. The patients who preferred the cA-QOL were 37.5%, while those who preferred the pA-QOL were 29.9%. Most patients reported that the cA-QOL was "easy" or "very easy" to complete. CONCLUSION: The cA-QOL is the computerized equivalent of the pA-QOL. The findings herein demonstrate that the cA-QOL can be helpful to nurses in busy practices for assessing, collecting, and evaluating their patients' health related quality of life.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a computerized touch-screen version of the asthma-specific quality-of-life (cA-QOL) questionnaire against the conventional paper-and-pencil version (pA-QOL) for equivalence, time for completion, user preference, and ease of use. METHODS: A total of 261 patients were recruited. A randomized cross-over design was used. Patients in group A completed the cA-QOL first while waiting to see a physician, and completed the pA-QOL version after seeing the physician. Patients allocated in group B completed these questionnaires in the reverse order. The patients were asked questions about user preference and ease of use of the cA-QOL. The time taken to complete both versions of the questionnaire was measured. RESULTS: Weighted kappa coefficients of all items showed almost perfect agreement. The time required to complete the pA-QOL is faster than the time for cA-QOL. The patients who preferred the cA-QOL were 37.5%, while those who preferred the pA-QOL were 29.9%. Most patients reported that the cA-QOL was "easy" or "very easy" to complete. CONCLUSION: The cA-QOL is the computerized equivalent of the pA-QOL. The findings herein demonstrate that the cA-QOL can be helpful to nurses in busy practices for assessing, collecting, and evaluating their patients' health related quality of life.