BACKGROUND: Scrolling is a perceived barrier in the use of bring your own device (BYOD) to capture electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs). This study explored the impact of scrolling on the measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in the presence and absence of scrolling. METHODS: Adult participants with a chronic condition involving daily pain completed ePROMs on four devices with different scrolling properties: a large provisioned device not requiring scrolling; two provisioned devices requiring scrolling - one with a "smart-scrolling" feature that disabled the "next" button until all information was viewed, and a second without this feature; and BYOD with smart-scrolling. The ePROMs included were the SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, and three pain measures: a visual analogue scale, a numeric response scale and a Likert scale. Participants completed English or Spanish versions according to their first language. Associations between ePROM scores were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), with lower bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) > 0.7 indicating comparability. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen English- or Spanish-speaking participants (21-75y) completed all four administrations. High associations between scrolling and non-scrolling were observed (ICCs: 0.71-0.96). The equivalence threshold was met for all but one SF-12 domain score (bodily pain; lower 95% CI: 0.65) and two EQ-5D-5L item scores (pain/discomfort, usual activities; lower 95% CI: 0.64/0.67). Age, language, and device size produced insignificant differences in scores. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement properties of PROMs are preserved even in the presence of scrolling on a handheld device. Further studies that assess scrolling impact over long-term, repeated use are recommended.
BACKGROUND: Scrolling is a perceived barrier in the use of bring your own device (BYOD) to capture electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs). This study explored the impact of scrolling on the measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in the presence and absence of scrolling. METHODS: Adult participants with a chronic condition involving daily pain completed ePROMs on four devices with different scrolling properties: a large provisioned device not requiring scrolling; two provisioned devices requiring scrolling - one with a "smart-scrolling" feature that disabled the "next" button until all information was viewed, and a second without this feature; and BYOD with smart-scrolling. The ePROMs included were the SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, and three pain measures: a visual analogue scale, a numeric response scale and a Likert scale. Participants completed English or Spanish versions according to their first language. Associations between ePROM scores were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), with lower bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) > 0.7 indicating comparability. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen English- or Spanish-speaking participants (21-75y) completed all four administrations. High associations between scrolling and non-scrolling were observed (ICCs: 0.71-0.96). The equivalence threshold was met for all but one SF-12 domain score (bodily pain; lower 95% CI: 0.65) and two EQ-5D-5L item scores (pain/discomfort, usual activities; lower 95% CI: 0.64/0.67). Age, language, and device size produced insignificant differences in scores. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement properties of PROMs are preserved even in the presence of scrolling on a handheld device. Further studies that assess scrolling impact over long-term, repeated use are recommended.
Authors: Bill Byrom; Helen Doll; Willie Muehlhausen; Emuella Flood; Cater Cassedy; Bryan McDowell; Jeremy Sohn; Kyle Hogan; Ryan Belmont; Barbara Skerritt; Marie McCarthy Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Stephen Joel Coons; Chad J Gwaltney; Ron D Hays; J Jason Lundy; Jeff A Sloan; Dennis A Revicki; William R Lenderking; David Cella; Ethan Basch Journal: Value Health Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: S E Hankinson; J E Manson; D Spiegelman; W C Willett; C Longcope; F E Speizer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Stephen Joel Coons; Sonya Eremenco; J Jason Lundy; Paul O'Donohoe; Hannah O'Gorman; William Malizia Journal: Patient Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.883