Comparing a tablet computer and paper forms for assessing patient-reported outcomes in edentulous patients

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to determine whether two methods of documentation, print and electronic forms, for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in complete denture wearers provide comparable results. The study also quantified the time needed for filling the forms by each method. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty participants enrolled in a university clinic answered two forms (a questionnaire for denture satisfaction and OHIP-EDENT). They provided answers with two application methods in a random order, with a one-month interval between them: (1) electronic forms on a tablet computer; and (2) print forms. The methods were compared in terms of mean results, correlation/agreement, internal consistency, and spent time. RESULTS Mean results for both methods were similar for each denture satisfaction item (100-mm VAS) and OHIP-EDENT summary score. Both questionnaires presented good internal consistency regardless of the application method (Cronbach's α=0.86 or higher). Correlation and agreement between the methods regarding specific items was at least moderate for the majority of cases. Mean time for the electronic and print forms were 9.2 and 8.5 minutes, respectively (paired t test, P=.06, non-significant). CONCLUSION The electronic method is comparable to print forms for the assessment of important PRO of prosthetic treatment for edentulism, considering the results and time needed. Findings suggest the viability of replacing print forms with a tablet for applying the tested inventories in clinical trials.