Usability of an innovative and interactive electronic system for collection of patient-reported data in axial spondyloarthritis: Comparison with the traditional paper-administered format

Rheumatology (United Kingdom)

Volumn 52, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 2062-2070

  Salaffi, Fausto ^a   Gasparini, Stefania ^a   Ciapetti, Alessandro ^a   Gutierrez, Marwin ^a   Grassi, Walter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Axial spondyloarthritis; Electronic data capture; Patient reported outcomes; Self administered questionnaires; SPEAMonitor; Touch screen

Indexed keywords

ACUTE PHASE RESPONSE; ADULT; ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS DISEASE ACTIVITY SCORE; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS; BATH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS DISEASE ACTIVITY INDEX; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DEMOGRAPHY; DISEASE DURATION; ELECTRONICS; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; SELF REPORT; SPONDYLARTHRITIS; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; TOUCH SCREEN; VALIDITY;

AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS; ELECTRONIC DATA CAPTURE; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES; SELF-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRES; SPEAMONITOR; TOUCH SCREEN;

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; COMPUTERS, HANDHELD; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; ITALY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPONDYLARTHRITIS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84886288295     PISSN: 14620324     EISSN: 14620332     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ket276     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Braun J, Sieper J. Ankylosing spondylitis. Lancet 2007; 369:1379-90.
2. Salaffi F, Carotti M, Gasparini S et al. The health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis: a comparison with a selected sample of healthy people. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009;7:25.
3. van der Heijde D, Calin A, Dougados M, et al. Selection of instruments in the core set for DC-ART, SMARD, physical therapy, and clinical record keeping in ankylosing spondylitis. Progress Report of the ASAS Working Group. Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis. J Rheumatol 1999;26:951-4.
4. Sieper J, Rudwaleit M, Baraliakos X, et al. The Assessment of the SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) handbook: a guide to assess spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68(Suppl II):ii1-44.
5. Lukas C, Landewé R, Sieper J, et al. Development of an ASAS-endorsed disease activity score (ASDAS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68: 18-24.
6. Calin A, Garret SL, Whitelock HC, et al. A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Activity Index (BASDAI). J Rheumatol 1994;2:2281-5.
7. Garret SL, Jenkinson TR, Whitelock HC, et al. A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI). J Rheumatol 1994;2:2286-91.
8. Jenkinson TR, Mallorie PA, Whitelock HC, et al. Defining spinal mobility in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The Bath AS Metrology Index. J Rheumatol 1994;21:1694-8.
9. Zochling J. Measures of symptoms and disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life Scale (ASQoL), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Score (BAS-G), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI), Dougados Functional Index (DFI), and Health Assessment Questionnaire for the Spondylarthropathies (HAQ-S). Arthritis Care Res 2011; 63(Suppl 11):S47-58.
10. Machado P, Landewé R, Lie E, et al. Assessment of the SpondyloArthritis international Society. Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS): defining cutoff values for disease activity states and improvement scores. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:47-53.
11. Stone AA, Shiffman S. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in behavioral medicine. Ann Behav Med 1994;16: 199-202.
12. Raymond SA, Ross RN. Electronic subject diaries in clinical trials. Appl Clin Trials 2000;9:48-58.
13. Cella DF. Methods and problems in measuring quality of life. Support Care Cancer 1995;3:11-22.
14. Drummond HE, Ghosh S, Ferguson A, et al. Electronic quality of life questionnaires: a comparison of pen-based electronic questionnaires with conventional paper in a gastrointestinal study. Qual Life Res 1995;4:21-6.
15. Vereecken CA. Paper pencil versus PC administered querying of a study on health behaviour in school-aged children. Arch Public Health 2001;59:43-61.
16. Salaffi F, Gasparini S, Grassi W. The use of computer touch-screen technology for the collection of patient-reported outcome data in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with standardized paper questionnaires. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2009;27:459-68.
17. Vereecken CA, Maes L. Comparison of a computer-administered and paper-and-pencil-administered questionnaire on health and lifestyle behaviors. J Adolesc Health 2006;38:426-32.
18. van den Kerkhof EG, Goldstein DH, Blaine WC, et al. A comparison of paper with electronic patient-completed questionnaires in a preoperative clinic. Anesth Analg 2005; 101:1075-80.
19. Hess R, Santucci A, McTigue K, et al. Patient difficulty using tablet computers to screen in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:476-80.
20. Pouwer F, Snoek FJ, van der Ploeg HM, et al. A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the Well-being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Qual Life Res 1997;7:33-8.
21. Provenzano DA, Fanciullo GJ, Jamison RN, et al. Computer assessment and diagnostic classification of chronic pain patients. Pain Med 2007;8:167-75.
22. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Regist 2006;71:1-32.
23. Kirwan JR, Hewlett SE, Heiberg T, et al. Incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment inrheumatoid arthritis-progress at OMERACT 7. J Rheumatol 2005;32:2250-6.
24. Rudwaleit M, Khan MA, Sieper J. The challenge of diagnosis and classification in early ankylosing spondylitis: do we need new criteria?. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:1000-8.
25. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Vondechend M, Bellamy N, et al. Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:80-4.
26. Palmblad M, Tiplady B. Electronic diaries and questionnaires: designing user interfaces that are easy for all patients to use. Qual Life Res 2004;13:1199-207.
27. Luckmann R, Vidal A. Design of a handheld electronic pain, treatment and activity diary. J Biomed Inform 2010; 43(5 Suppl):S32-36.
28. Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri A, et al. Validation of the Italian versions of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and the Dougados Functional Index (DFI) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Reumatismo 2005;57:161-73.
29. van der Heijde D, Dougados M, Davis J, et al. Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis International Working Group/ Spondylitis Association of America recommendations for conducting clinical trials in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:386-94.
30. van der Heijde D, Landewé R, Feldtkeller E. Proposal of a linear definition of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) and comparison with the 2-step and 10-step definitions. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:489-93.
31. Auleley GR, Benbouazza K, Spoorenberg A, et al. Evaluation of the smallest detectable difference in outcome or process variables in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 2002;47:582-7.
32. Calin A, Nakache JP, Gueguen A, et al. Outcome variables in ankylosing spondylitis: evaluation of their relevance and discriminant capacity. J Rheumatol 1999;26:975-9.
33. van Weely SF, van Denderen CJ, van der Horst-Bruinsma IE, et al. Reproducibility of performance measures of physical function based on the BASFI, in ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology 2009;48: 1254-60.
34. van Weely SF, van Denderen JC, Steultjens MP, et al. Moving instead of asking?. Performance-based tests and BASFI-questionnaire measure different aspects of physical function in ankylosing spondylitis [abstract]. Arthritis Res Ther 2012;14:R52.
35. Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
36. Pavy S, Brophy S, Calin A. Establishment of the minimum clinically important difference for the Bath ankylosing spondylitis indices: a prospective study. J Rheumatol 2005;32:80-5.
37. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
38. Richter JG, Becker A, Koch T, et al. Self-assessments of patients via tablet PC in routine patient care: comparison with standardized paper questionnaires. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:1739-41.
39. Kvien TK, Mowinckel P, Heiberg T, et al. Performance of health status measures with a pen-based personal digital assistant. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:1480-4.
40. Ramachandran S, Lundy JJ, Coons SJ. Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and touch-screen versions of the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS). Qual Life Res 2008;17:1117-20.
41. Ammentorp J, Rasmussen AM, Nørgaard B, et al. Electronic questionnaires for measuring parent satisfaction and as a basis for quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:120-4.
42. Bliven BD, Kaufman SE, Spertus JA. Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Qual Life Res 2001;10:15-22.
43. De Bree R, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Keizer AL, et al. Touch screen computer-assisted health-related quality of life and distress data collection in head and neck cancer patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:138-42.
44. Greenwood MC, Hakim AJ, Carson E, et al. Touch-screen computer systems in the rheumatology clinic offer a reliable and user-friendly means of collecting quality-of-life and outcome data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2006;45:66-71.
45. Wilson AS, Kitas GD, Carruthers DM, et al. Computerised information gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: an initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36. Rheumatology 2002;41:268-73.
46. Taenzer PA, Sauve L, Burgess ED, et al. The health interview: automated assessment in a multidisciplinary outpatient hypertension treatment program. MD Comput 1996; 13:423-6.
47. Harlin SL, Harlin RD, Sherman TI, et al. Using a structured, computer-administered questionnaire for evaluating health-related quality of life in patients with chronic lower extremity wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage 2009;55:30-9.
48. Gudbergsen H, Bartels EM, Krusager P, et al. Test-retest of computerized health status questionnaires frequently used in the monitoring of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized crossover trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12:190.
49. McDonald DD, Fedo J. Older adults' pain communication: the effect of interruption. Pain Manag Nurs 2009;10: 149-53.
50. Hetland ML, Lindegaard HM, Hansen A, et al. Do changes in prescription practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological agents affect treatment response and adherence to therapy?. Results from the nationwide Danish DANBIO Registry. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:1023-6.
51. Bent H, Ratzlaff CR, Goligher EC, et al. Computer administered Bath ankylosing spondylitis and Quebec Scale outcome questionnaires for low back pain: agreement with traditional paper format. J Rheumatol 2005;32: 669-72.
52. Kleinman L, Leidy NK, Crawley J, et al. A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Med Care 2001;39:181-9.
53. Theiler R, Spielberger J, Bischoff HA, et al. Clinical evaluation of the WOMAC 3.0 OA Index in numeric rating scaleformat using a computerized touch screen version. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002;10:479-81.
54. Cook AJ, Roberts DA, Henderson MD, et al. Electronic pain questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain 2004;110:310-7.
55. Wilkie DJ, Judge MK, Berry DL, et al. Usability of a computerized PAINReportIt in the general public with pain and people with cancer pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003; 25:213-24.
56. Schefte DB, Hetland ML. An open-source, self-explanatory touch screen in routine care. Validity of filling in the Bath measures on Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Function Index, the Health Assessment Questionnaire and Visual Analogue Scales in comparison with paper versions. Rheumatology 2010;49:99-104.
57. Thumboo J, Wee HL, Cheung YB, et al. Computerized administration of health-related quality of life instruments compared to interviewer administration may reduce sample size requirements in clinical research: a pilot randomized controlled trial among rheumatology patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2007;25:577-83.
58. Goodhart IM, Ibbotson V, Doane A, et al. Hypopituitary patients prefer a touch-screen to paper quality of life questionnaire. Growth Horm IGF Res 2005;15:384-7.
59. Larsson BW. Touch-screen versus paper-and-pen questionnaires: effects on patients' evaluations of quality of care. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv 2006;19:328-38.
60. Schaeren S, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Knupp M, et al. A computer touch-screen version of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument for the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:201-4.
61. McAlindon T, Formica M, Kabbara K, et al. Conducting clinical trials over the Internet: feasibility study. Br Med J 2003;327:484-7.
62. Appel PR, Bleiberg J, Noiseux J. Self-regulation training for chronic pain: can it be done effectively by telemedicine?. Telemed J E-Health 2002;8:361-8.