Search

Showing total 2 results
Start Over Topic questionnaire Publisher elsevier bv
2 results

1. Validity of five foot and ankle specific electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) instruments in patients undergoing elective orthopedic foot or ankle surgery

Author

Risto P. Roine, Antti Latvala, Mika Sampo, Timo Sirola, Mikko Miettinen, Arja Häkkinen, Outi Ilves, Alar Toom, Anna Sandbacka, Ville T. Ponkilainen, Jussi P. Repo, Jan Lindahl, Henrik Sandelin, Mikko M. Uimonen, I kirurgian klinikka (Töölö), Helsinki University Hospital Area, University of Helsinki, HUS Musculoskeletal and Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, HUS Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Pathology, Department of Oncology, and Medicum

Subjects
Male, psychometrics, Visual Analog Scale, clinimetrics, leikkaushoito, 0302 clinical medicine, Surveys and Questionnaires, Electronic Health Records, Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Patient-reported outcome, validation, 030222 orthopedics, Middle Aged, Electronic patient-reported outcome, PRO MEASURES, 3. Good health, psykometriikka, medicine.anatomical_structure, Convergent validity, validointi, Female, EQUIVALENCE, Foot (unit), medicine.medical_specialty, Psychometrics, Visual analogue scale, QUESTIONNAIRE, patient-reported outcome, VALIDATION, ANALOG SCALE FOOT, ePRO, 03 medical and health sciences, Clinimetrics, ankle, medicine, QUALITY, COSMIN, Humans, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Foot, business.industry, Reproducibility of Results, Construct validity, 030229 sport sciences, 3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology, jalat, Surgery, SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, nilkat, hoitotulokset, foot, Orthopedic surgery, PAPER, Ankle, business, Ankle Joint, TASK-FORCE
Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROS) are widely accepted measures for evaluating outcomes of surgical interventions. As patient-reported information is stored in electronic health records, it is essential that there are valid electronic PRO (ePRO) instruments available for clinicians and researchers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of electronic versions of five widely used foot and ankle specific PRO instruments. Methods: Altogether 111 consecutive elective foot/ankle surgery patients were invited face-to-face to participate in this study. Patients completed electronic versions of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), the modified Lower Extremity Function Scale (LEFS), the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), and the Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) on the day of elective foot and/or ankle surgery. Construct validity, coverage, and targeting of the scales were assessed. Results: Based on general and predefined thresholds, construct validity, coverage, and targeting of the ePRO versions of the FAAM, the FAOS, the MOXFQ, and the VAS-FA were acceptable. Major issues arose with score distribution and convergent validity of the modified LEFS instrument. Conclusions: The ePRO versions of the FAAM, the FAOS, the MOXFQ and the VAS-FA provide valid scores for foot and ankle patients. However, our findings do not support the use of the modified LEFS as an electronic outcome measure for patients with orthopedic foot and/or ankle pathologies. (C) 2020 European Foot and Ankle Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Published
2021

2. Patients may respond differently to paper and electronic versions of the same questionnaires

Author

John M. Langlands, Bridget A. Juniper, and Elizabeth F. Juniper

Subjects
Adult, Paper, Quality of life, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, medicine.medical_specialty, Adolescent, Intraclass correlation, Concordance, Young Adult, Rhinoconjunctivitis, Surveys and Questionnaires, Electronic, Humans, Medicine, Aged, Asthma, Questionnaire, business.industry, Middle Aged, medicine.disease, Surgery, Patient Satisfaction, Asthma Control Questionnaire, Lung disease, Computers, Handheld, Physical therapy, business
Abstract

Summary Aim To adapt the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ(S)), the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ(S)) for a personal digital assistant (Palm TX) and to examine the validity of the electronic versions by comparing them with the original paper versions. Methods 84 adults with asthma and 32 with rhinitis were randomised to complete either the paper or the electronic version first. After 2h, they completed the other version. Results 68 asthma and 27 rhinitis patients provided analysable data. For the AQLQ(S) and RQLQ(S) differences between paper and electronic were significant. Concordance between paper and electronic, evaluated using an intraclass correlation coefficient were: AQLQ=0.92, ACQ=0.90 and RQLQ=0.85. Concordance for the individual domains of the AQLQ and RQLQ ranged from 0.52 to 0.94. These levels of concordance did not reach the a priori defined requirement for validity. Conclusions The significant bias between paper and electronic versions and only modest concordance provides evidence that patients may respond differently to questionnaires in different formats and show that different formats must not be used interchangeably.

Published
2009