Literature DB >> 29753356

Measurement Equivalence of Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Response Scale Types Collected Using Bring Your Own Device Compared to Paper and a Provisioned Device: Results of a Randomized Equivalence Trial.

Bill Byrom1, Helen Doll2, Willie Muehlhausen2, Emuella Flood2, Cater Cassedy2, Bryan McDowell3, Jeremy Sohn3, Kyle Hogan4, Ryan Belmont4, Barbara Skerritt2, Marie McCarthy2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the measurement equivalence of individual response scale types by using a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) collected on paper and migrated into electronic format for use on the subject's own mobile device (BYOD) and on a provisioned device (site device).
METHODS: Subjects suffering from chronic health conditions causing daily pain or discomfort were invited to participate in this single-site, single visit, three-way crossover study. Association between individual item and instrument subscale scores was assessed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and its CI. Participant attitudes toward the use of BYOD in a clinical trial were assessed through use of a questionnaire.
RESULTS: In this study, 155 subjects (females 83 [54%]; males 72 [46%]) ages 19 to 69 years (mean ± SD: 48.6 ± 13.1) were recruited. High association between the modes of administration (paper, BYOD, site device) was shown with analysis of ICCs (0.79-0.98) for each response scale type, including visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, verbal response scale, and Likert scale. Of the subjects, 94% (146 of 155) stated that they would definitely or probably be willing to download an app onto their own mobile device for a forthcoming clinical trial. Forty-five percent of subjects felt BYOD would be more convenient compared with 15% preferring a provisioned device (40% had no preference).
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides strong evidence supporting the use of BYOD for PROM collection in terms of the conservation of instrument measurement equivalence across the most widely used response scale types, and high patient acceptance of the approach.
Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bring your own device (BYOD); electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO); measurement equivalence; patient acceptability

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29753356     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.008

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  Considerations for Conducting Bring Your Own "Device" (BYOD) Clinical Studies.

Authors:  Charmaine Demanuele; Cynthia Lokker; Krishna Jhaveri; Pirinka Georgiev; Emre Sezgin; Cindy Geoghegan; Kelly H Zou; Elena Izmailova; Marie McCarthy
Journal:  Digit Biomark       Date:  2022-07-04

2.  Toward e-Scales: Digital Administration of the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society Rating Scales.

Authors:  Mariana H G Monje; Rebecca L M Fuller; Esther Cubo; Tiago A Mestre; Ai Huey Tan; Julie C Stout; Shazia Ali; Lana Chahine; Kathy Dujardin; Cheryl J Fitzer-Attas; Jinyoung Youn; Bastiaan R Bloem; Fay B Horak; Aristide Merola; Ralf Reilmann; Serene S Paul; Earl Ray Dorsey; Walter Maetzler; Alberto J Espay; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Glenn T Stebbins; Álvaro Sánchez-Ferro
Journal:  Mov Disord Clin Pract       Date:  2020-12-28

3.  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

4.  Paper Versus Digital Data Collection Methods for Road Safety Observations: Comparative Efficiency Analysis of Cost, Timeliness, Reliability, and Results.

Authors:  Niloufer Taber; Amber Mehmood; Perumal Vedagiri; Shivam Gupta; Rachel Pinto; Abdulgafoor M Bachani
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 5.  A Review of Current Ambulatory Assessment Studies in Adolescent Samples and Practical Recommendations.

Authors:  Eeske van Roekel; Loes Keijsers; Joanne M Chung
Journal:  J Res Adolesc       Date:  2019-09

6.  Mobile App-based documentation of patient-reported outcomes - 3-months results from a proof-of-concept study on modern rheumatology patient management.

Authors:  Jutta G Richter; Christina Nannen; Gamal Chehab; Hasan Acar; Arnd Becker; Reinhart Willers; Dörte Huscher; Matthias Schneider
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 5.156

7.  Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study.

Authors:  Saeid Shahraz; Tan P Pham; Marc Gibson; Marie De La Cruz; Munther Baara; Sachin Karnik; Christopher Dell; Sheryl Pease; Suyash Nigam; Joseph C Cappelleri; Craig Lipset; Patrick Zornow; Jeff Lee; Bill Byrom
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2021-02-27

8.  Mobile Responsive App-A Useful Additional Tool for Data Collection in the German Pregnancy Register Rhekiss?

Authors:  Jutta G Richter; Anja Weiß; Christina Bungartz; Rebecca Fischer-Betz; Angela Zink; Matthias Schneider; Anja Strangfeld
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-12-17

Review 9.  Measurement Comparability of Electronic and Paper Administration of Visual Analogue Scales: A Review of Published Studies.

Authors:  Bill Byrom; Celeste A Elash; Sonya Eremenco; Serge Bodart; Willie Muehlhausen; Jill V Platko; Chris Watson; Cindy Howry
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2022-02-10       Impact factor: 1.778

10.  A usability and feasibility study of a computerized version of the Bath Adolescent Pain Questionnaire: the BAPQ-C.

Authors:  Abbie Jordan; Fiona M Begen; Lisa Austin; Rhiannon T Edwards; Hannah Connell
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 2.125

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.