Haeyoung Kim1, Hee Chul Park2,3, Sang Min Yoon4, Tae Hyun Kim5, Jinsung Kim6, Min Kyu Kang7, Jinhong Jung8, Sang-Won Kim7, Ji Woon Yea7, Sung Ho Park9, Young Suk Park10. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hwaseong, South Korea. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, South Korea. hee.ro.park@samsung.com. 3. Department of Medical Device Management and Research, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea. hee.ro.park@samsung.com. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. drsmyoon@amc.seoul.kr. 5. Center for Proton Therapy, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, South Korea. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, South Korea. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, South Korea. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 9. Department of Neurosurgery, Ulsan University Hospital, Ulsan, South Korea. 10. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compared a tablet PC questionnaire with a paper method for reliability and patient preferences in the acquisition of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients treated withradiotherapy. By comparing the two modes of PRO administration, we aimed to evaluate the adequacy of using tablet PC questionnaires in future clinical use. METHODS: Patients were randomized in a crossover study design using two different methods for PRO entry. A group of 89 patients answered a paper questionnaire followed by the tablet PC version, whereas 89 patients in another group completed the tablet PC questionnaire followed by the paper version. Surveys were performed four times per patient throughout the course of the radiotherapy. The Korean versions of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-K) and the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI-K) were used. The primary endpoint of our current study was an assessment of patient preference for the survey method. The proportions of patients preferring each mode of questionnaire were evaluated. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who preferred the tablet PC version, paper form, or who had no preference was 52.2, 22.1, and 25.7 %, respectively. More than half of the patients preferred the tablet PC to the paper version in all four surveys. Age, gender, educational status, prior experience of using a tablet PC, and the order of paper to tablet PC administration did not impact patient preferences. Inter-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) between the modes were 0.92 for MDASI-K and 0.94 for BFI-K and ranged from 0.91 to 0.96 on both instruments during the four surveys. CONCLUSIONS: A tablet PC-based PRO is an acceptable and reliable method compared with paper-based data collection for Korean patients receivingradiotherapy.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This study compared a tablet PC questionnaire with a paper method for reliability and patient preferences in the acquisition of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients treated with radiotherapy. By comparing the two modes of PRO administration, we aimed to evaluate the adequacy of using tablet PC questionnaires in future clinical use. METHODS:Patients were randomized in a crossover study design using two different methods for PRO entry. A group of 89 patients answered a paper questionnaire followed by the tablet PC version, whereas 89 patients in another group completed the tablet PC questionnaire followed by the paper version. Surveys were performed four times per patient throughout the course of the radiotherapy. The Korean versions of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-K) and the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI-K) were used. The primary endpoint of our current study was an assessment of patient preference for the survey method. The proportions of patients preferring each mode of questionnaire were evaluated. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who preferred the tablet PC version, paper form, or who had no preference was 52.2, 22.1, and 25.7 %, respectively. More than half of the patients preferred the tablet PC to the paper version in all four surveys. Age, gender, educational status, prior experience of using a tablet PC, and the order of paper to tablet PC administration did not impact patient preferences. Inter-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) between the modes were 0.92 for MDASI-K and 0.94 for BFI-K and ranged from 0.91 to 0.96 on both instruments during the four surveys. CONCLUSIONS: A tablet PC-based PRO is an acceptable and reliable method compared with paper-based data collection for Korean patients receiving radiotherapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Equivalence; Health-related quality of life; Patient-reported outcomes; Radiotherapy; Tablet PC
Authors: Arthur Zbrozek; Joy Hebert; Gregory Gogates; Rod Thorell; Christopher Dell; Elizabeth Molsen; Gretchen Craig; Kenneth Grice; Scottie Kern; Sheldon Hines Journal: Value Health Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Young Ho Yun; Xin Shelley Wang; Jung Suk Lee; Ju Won Roh; Chang Geol Lee; Won Sup Lee; Keun Seok Lee; Soo-Mee Bang; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Amy P Abernethy; James E Herndon; Jane L Wheeler; Jeannette M Day; Linda Hood; Meenal Patwardhan; Heather Shaw; Herbert Kim Lyerly Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2009-04-25 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: J M Valderas; A Kotzeva; M Espallargues; G Guyatt; C E Ferrans; M Y Halyard; D A Revicki; T Symonds; A Parada; J Alonso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Janet Yamada; Andrew Kouri; Sarah-Nicole Simard; Stephanie A Segovia; Samir Gupta Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Afaf Girgis; Ivana Durcinoska; Janelle V Levesque; Martha Gerges; Tiffany Sandell; Anthony Arnold; Geoff P Delaney Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 5.428