Literature DB >> 21402299

Internet-based follow-up questionnaire for measuring patient-reported outcome after total hip replacement surgery-reliability and response rate.

Ola Rolfson1, Roger Salomonsson, Leif E Dahlberg, Göran Garellick.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This randomized methodologic study sought to test the reliability of an Internet questionnaire and investigate the differences in response rates between traditional pen-and-paper questionnaires and Internet questionnaires for measuring patient-reported outcome after total hip replacement surgery.
METHODS: From the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, 2400 patients were chosen at random but stratified by age, sex, and diagnosis for inclusion in a 4-year follow-up using the health-related quality of life tool EQ-5D and visual analogue scales for pain and satisfaction. The patients were randomized to answer the follow-up model protocol either via a password-protected Internet questionnaire or via a mailed pen-and-paper questionnaire.
RESULTS: A reliability test for the Internet follow-up instrument showed adequate correlation. However, the Internet group and the pen-and-paper group differed significantly (P < 0.001) with a 92% response rate in the latter and 49% in the former. Adjusted to the normal age distribution of the total hip replacement population, the Internet response rate was 34%.
CONCLUSIONS: The patient-administered Internet questionnaire alone does not give a sufficient response rate in the total hip replacement population to replace the pen-and-paper questionnaire. However, the system is reliable and could be used for measuring patient-reported outcome if supplemented with traditional pen-and-paper questionnaires for Internet nonrespondents. It is expected that this answer procedure will soon predominate in view of the general development of Internet functions. Register work may then become less resource-consuming and the results may be analyzed in real time.
Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21402299     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  11 in total

Review 1.  Use of patient-reported outcomes in the context of different levels of data.

Authors:  Ola Rolfson; Alastair Rothwell; Art Sedrakyan; Kate Eresian Chenok; Eric Bohm; Kevin J Bozic; Göran Garellick
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Challenges and Opportunities in Using Patient-reported Outcomes in Quality Measurement in Rheumatology.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Wahl; Jinoos Yazdany
Journal:  Rheum Dis Clin North Am       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 2.670

3.  Feasibility of Collecting Multiple Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Alongside the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  Claire Tilbury; Claudia S Leichtenberg; Bart L Kaptein; Lennard A Koster; Suzan H M Verdegaal; Ron Onstenk; Henrike M J van der Linden-van der Zwaag; Rover Krips; Herman H Kaptijn; Stephan B W Vehmeijer; Willem-Jan C M Marijnissen; Jorit J L Meesters; Stephanie M van Rooden; Ronald Brand; Rob G H H Nelissen; Maaike G J Gademan; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2019-06-04

4.  Comparison of paper and electronic surveys for measuring patient-reported outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Jamie L Bojcic; Valerie M Sue; Tomy S Huon; Gregory B Maletis; Maria C S Inacio
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2014

5.  Hip and knee replacement patients prefer pen-and-paper questionnaires: Implications for future patient-reported outcome measure studies.

Authors:  J C Keurentjes; M Fiocco; C So-Osman; R Ostenk; A W M M Koopman-Van Gemert; R G Pöll; R G H H Nelissen
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 5.853

6.  Electronic Data Capture Versus Conventional Data Collection Methods in Clinical Pain Studies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Lindsay A Jibb; James S Khan; Puneet Seth; Chitra Lalloo; Lauren Mulrooney; Kathryn Nicholson; Dominik A Nowak; Harneel Kaur; Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow; Joel Foster; Jennifer N Stinson
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Patient-Reported Outcome Information Collected from Lupus Patients Using a Mobile Application: Compliance and Validation.

Authors:  Kristy Bell; Claire Dykas; Bridget Muckian; Brooke Williams; Hope Rainey; Maggy Comberg; Mary Mora; Katherine A Owen; Peter E Lipsky
Journal:  ACR Open Rheumatol       Date:  2021-11-10

8.  Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.

Authors:  Katie Gillies; Anna Kearney; Ciara Keenan; Shaun Treweek; Jemma Hudson; Valerie C Brueton; Thomas Conway; Andrew Hunter; Louise Murphy; Peter J Carr; Greta Rait; Paul Manson; Magaly Aceves-Martins
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-03-06

9.  Use of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Measures at Group and Patient Levels: Experiences From the Generic Integrated PRO System, WestChronic.

Authors:  Niels Henrik Ingvar Hjollund; Louise Pape Larsen; Karin Biering; Soren Paaske Johnsen; Erik Riiskjær; Liv Marit Schougaard
Journal:  Interact J Med Res       Date:  2014-02-11

10.  Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis.

Authors:  Ola Rolfson; Eric Bohm; Patricia Franklin; Stephen Lyman; Geke Denissen; Jill Dawson; Jennifer Dunn; Kate Eresian Chenok; Michael Dunbar; Søren Overgaard; Göran Garellick; Anne Lübbeke
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.