1. Comparison between electronic and paper versions of patient-reported outcome measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an observational study with a cross-over administration
- Author
-
Koichi Nishimura, Toru Oga, Masaaki Kusunose, Yousuke Tsuji, Ryo Sanda, and Yoshinori Hasegawa
- Subjects
Male ,Paper ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Intraclass correlation ,Pulmonary disease ,health status ,03 medical and health sciences ,Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive ,0302 clinical medicine ,medicine ,Outpatient clinic ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Patient Reported Outcome Measures ,chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) ,Respiratory Medicine ,Aged ,Original Research ,Cross over ,Aged, 80 and over ,COPD ,Data collection ,Cross-Over Studies ,business.industry ,Reproducibility of Results ,patient-reported outcome (PRO) ,General Medicine ,medicine.disease ,the COPD assessment test (CAT) ,Cross-Sectional Studies ,Physical therapy ,the evaluating respiratory symptoms in COPD (E-RS) ,Patient-reported outcome ,Observational study ,Female ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Abstract
ObjectivesA wide range of electronic devices can be used for data collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although comparisons between electronic and paper-based PRO measures have been undertaken in asthmatics, it is currently uncertain whether electronic questionnaires work equally as well as paper versions in elderly subjects with COPD. The aim of this study was to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS) and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).DesignA randomised cross-over design was used to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the two tools. The interval between the two administrations was 1 week.SettingElectronic versions were self-administered under supervision using a tablet computer at our outpatient clinic (secondary care hospital in Japan) while paper questionnaires completed at home were requested to be returned by mail. It was intended that half of the patients completed the electronic versions of both questionnaires first, followed by the paper versions while the other half completed the paper versions first.ParticipantsEighty-one subjects with stable COPD were included.ResultsThe E-RS total scores (possible range 0–40) were 6.8±7.4 and 5.0±6.6 in the paper-based and electronic versions, respectively, and the CAT scores (possible range 0–40) were 10.0±7.4 and 8.6±7.8. In both questionnaires, higher scores indicate worse status. The relationship between electronic and paper versions showed significant reliability for both the E-RS total score and CAT score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.82 and 0.89, respectively; both pConclusionsIn both cases, the two versions of the same questionnaire cannot be used interchangeably even though they have both been validated.
- Published
- 2019