Elizabeth J Scott1, Christopher A Anthony, Patrick Rooney, T Sean Lynch, Michael C Willey, Robert W Westermann. 1. From the Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, Iowa City, IA (Dr. Scott, Dr. Anthony, Mr. Rooney, Dr. Willey, and Dr. Westermann), and the Center for Shoulder, Elbow and Sports Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY (Dr. Lynch).
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments typically are delivered via paper or computer; we validated administration of hip-specific instruments over a mobile phone software communication platform outside a clinical encounter. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n = 69) presenting to a hip preservation clinic completed the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Short Form physical function and pain subscales (HOOS-PS and HOOS-PAIN) using standard collection techniques. The subsequent day, patients completed these instruments via a text messaging software program. Text reminders were sent to encourage completion of unanswered questions. Correlation between in-office and mobile phone delivery of PROs was assessed. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient between in-clinic and mobile phone delivery of HOOS-PS and HOOS-PAIN was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.81) and 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.87), respectively. Completion rate of 93% (64 of the 69) was observed using mobile phone and software messaging. Nine patients completed their PRO after being sent a text message reminder. Fifty-one percent of patients completed all PRO questions within 5 minutes; 26% took between 5 and 10 minutes, and 16% took 10 to 30 minutes for completion. DISCUSSION: HOOS-PS and HOOS-PAIN PRO instruments administered via text messaging with automated reminders demonstrate good to excellent reproducibility, no minimal detectable change between communication methods, and a high completion rate in adolescents and young adults with hip pain. Mobile phone delivery via automated software may be a valid method for administration of other PROs, allowing for communication with patients anytime and anywhere. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.
INTRODUCTION:Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments typically are delivered via paper or computer; we validated administration of hip-specific instruments over a mobile phone software communication platform outside a clinical encounter. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n = 69) presenting to a hip preservation clinic completed the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Short Form physical function and pain subscales (HOOS-PS and HOOS-PAIN) using standard collection techniques. The subsequent day, patients completed these instruments via a text messaging software program. Text reminders were sent to encourage completion of unanswered questions. Correlation between in-office and mobile phone delivery of PROs was assessed. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient between in-clinic and mobile phone delivery of HOOS-PS and HOOS-PAIN was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.81) and 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.87), respectively. Completion rate of 93% (64 of the 69) was observed using mobile phone and software messaging. Nine patients completed their PRO after being sent a text message reminder. Fifty-one percent of patients completed all PRO questions within 5 minutes; 26% took between 5 and 10 minutes, and 16% took 10 to 30 minutes for completion. DISCUSSION: HOOS-PS and HOOS-PAIN PRO instruments administered via text messaging with automated reminders demonstrate good to excellent reproducibility, no minimal detectable change between communication methods, and a high completion rate in adolescents and young adults with hip pain. Mobile phone delivery via automated software may be a valid method for administration of other PROs, allowing for communication with patients anytime and anywhere. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.
Authors: Chris A Anthony; Edward Octavio Rojas; Valerie Keffala; Natalie Ann Glass; Apurva S Shah; Benjamin J Miller; Matthew Hogue; Michael C Willey; Matthew Karam; John Lawrence Marsh Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Chris A Anthony; Edward Rojas; Natalie Glass; Valerie Keffala; Nicholas Noiseux; Jacob Elkins; Timothy S Brown; Nicholas A Bedard Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2021-12-11 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Lauren M Shapiro; Mung Phan Đình; Luan Tran; Paige M Fox; Marc J Richard; Robin N Kamal Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 2.342