Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys
Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0736-0266(02)00059-1
复制
发表时间：
2002-11-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Robinson, H
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Saleh, KJ;Radosevich, DM;Robinson, H
简介：测量骨科手术后患者感知的结果已成为临床研究和患者护理的重要组成部分。一般和疾病特异性的结果的措施已被开发和应用在骨科，以评估患者的感知健康状况。不幸的是，基于纸张的自我管理工具仍然效率低下，因为收集数据。(a)目的：探讨掌上电脑和纸笔自填式问卷在收集患者健康相关生活质量（HRQL）信息方面的可比性。使用掌上电脑和传统纸质问卷管理HRQL问卷的可比性在96名主诉髋关节和/或膝关节疼痛的患者样本中测试了基于表格的方法。每位患者在就诊前三周完成邮寄版本的医学结局研究（MOS）、36项健康调查（SF-36）以及西安大略和麦克马斯特大学关节炎指数（WOMAC）。在诊所，他们被要求完成相同的结果措施，使用掌上电脑或纸和铅笔version.Analysis：在分析中，规模分布，地板和天花板效应，内部一致性和重测信度的规模进行了比较，在两种数据收集方法。由于各组的基线特征是不严格可比的，根据年龄，数据进行了分析，为整个样本和分层，根据age.Results：几个统计学显着差异被发现的平均值，方差和组内相关系数之间的管理方法。虽然这两种方法之间的规模分布是可比的，规模的内部一致性是differential.Conclusions：管理HRQL问卷使用便携式掌上电脑设备具有潜在的优势，降低成本和方便。这些数据为掌上电脑和纸质调查在骨科手术领域广泛使用的结局指标的可比性提供了一些支持。本研究确定了不同给药方式之间缺乏可靠性，需要在随机可比性试验中进一步研究。这些模式效应对于骨科医生在实践中实施创新的数据采集技术之前进行评估非常重要。(C)2002骨科研究学会。由爱思唯尔科技有限公司出版。保留所有权利。
Introduction: Measuring patient-perceived outcomes following orthopaedic procedures have become an important component of clinical research and patient care. General and disease-specific outcomes measures have been developed and applied in orthopaedics to assess the patients' perceived health status. Unfortunately, paper-based, self-administered instruments remain inefficient for collecting data because of. (a) missing data (b) respondent error, and (c) the costs to administer and enter data.Objective: To study the comparability of palm-top computer devices and paper-pencil self-administered questionnaires in the collection of health-related quality of life (HRQL) information from patients.Methods: The comparability of administering HRQL questionnaires using palm-top computer and traditional paper-based forms was tested in a sample of 96 patients with complaints of hip and/or knee pain. Each patient completed mailed versions of the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS), 36-item Health Survey (SF-36), and Western Ontario and McMasters University Arthritis Index (WOMAC) three weeks prior to presenting to clinic. At the clinic they were asked to complete the same outcomes measures using the palm-top computer or a paper-and-pencil version.Analysis: In the analysis, scale distributions, floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency and retest reliability of scales were compared across the two data collection methods. Because the baseline characteristics of the groups were not strictly comparable according to age, the data were analyzed for the entire sample and stratified according to age.Results: Few statistically significant differences were found for the means, variances and intra-class correlation coefficients between the methods of administration. While the scale distribution between the two methods was comparable, the internal consistency of the scales was dissimilar.Conclusions: Administration of HRQL questionnaires using portable palm-top computer devices has the potential advantage of decreased cost and convenience. These data lend some support for the comparability of palm-top computers and paper surveys for outcomes measures widely used in the field of orthopaedic surgery. The present study identified the lack of reliability across modes of administration that requires further study in a randomized comparability trial. These mode effects are important for orthopaedic surgeons to appreciate before implementing innovative data-capture technologies in their practices. (C) 2002 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.