Arjan G J Bot1, Mariano E Menendez1, Valentin Neuhaus1, Chaitanya S Mudgal2, David Ring2. 1. Orthopaedic Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Yawkey Center, Suite 2100, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114 USA. 2. Orthopaedic Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Yawkey Center, Suite 2100, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114 USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Questionnaires are often used to quantify the subjective aspects of illness such as disability, coping strategies, or symptoms of depression. Most questionnaires were validated in a paper-based format, but direct entry into a computer is becoming commonplace. The aim of this study was to assess differences in outcome of questionnaires pertinent to hand and upper extremity illness when they were administered in a computer or paper format. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients completed both paper and web versions of the short forms of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; the Pain Catastrophizing Scale; the Short Health Anxiety Index (SHAI-6); the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale; and a pain scale and the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire sequentially during a single visit. We alternated starting with the paper or the web version after every five patients. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 46 females and 53 males with a mean age of 49 years. There were significant differences in SHAI-6 and the pain scale, but not in the other measures. The intraclass correlation was high. CONCLUSIONS: The use of these questionnaires in electronic format is valid provided that the small differences we observed are not important to the primary study question. In our opinion, for most studies, the advantages of using an electronic format outweigh the small additional variation that might be introduced in the measures in an electronic format.
BACKGROUND: Questionnaires are often used to quantify the subjective aspects of illness such as disability, coping strategies, or symptoms of depression. Most questionnaires were validated in a paper-based format, but direct entry into a computer is becoming commonplace. The aim of this study was to assess differences in outcome of questionnaires pertinent to hand and upper extremity illness when they were administered in a computer or paper format. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients completed both paper and web versions of the short forms of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; the Pain Catastrophizing Scale; the Short Health Anxiety Index (SHAI-6); the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale; and a pain scale and the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire sequentially during a single visit. We alternated starting with the paper or the web version after every five patients. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 46 females and 53 males with a mean age of 49 years. There were significant differences in SHAI-6 and the pain scale, but not in the other measures. The intraclass correlation was high. CONCLUSIONS: The use of these questionnaires in electronic format is valid provided that the small differences we observed are not important to the primary study question. In our opinion, for most studies, the advantages of using an electronic format outweigh the small additional variation that might be introduced in the measures in an electronic format.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Nina Shervin; Janet Dorrwachter; Charles R Bragdon; David Shervin; David Zurakowski; Henrik Malchau Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ana-Maria Vranceanu; Steven Safren; Meijuan Zhao; James Cowan; David Ring Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-07-18 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Marloes Zuidgeest; Michelle Hendriks; Laura Koopman; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Jany Rademakers Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Arjan G J Bot; Stijn Bekkers; Paul M Arnstein; R Malcolm Smith; David Ring Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Arjan G J Bot; Stéphanie J E Becker; C Niek van Dijk; David Ring; Ana-Maria Vranceanu Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Jennifer Cronly; Alistair J Duff; Kristin A Riekert; Ivan J Perry; Anthony P Fitzgerald; Aine Horgan; Elaine Lehane; Barbara Howe; Muireann Ni Chroinin; Eileen Savage Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-01-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Elise Braekman; Finaba Berete; Rana Charafeddine; Stefaan Demarest; Sabine Drieskens; Lydia Gisle; Geert Molenberghs; Jean Tafforeau; Johan Van der Heyden; Guido Van Hal Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 3.240