Patients Respond Similarly to Paper and Electronic Versions of the WOMAC and SF-12 Following Total Joint Arthroplasty

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 670-673

  Marsh, Jacquelyn D ^a   Bryant, Dianne M ^a   MacDonald, Steven J ^b   Naudie, Douglas D R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Agreement; Data collection; Electronic; Reliability; Total hip arthroplasty; Total knee arthroplasty

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CRITERION RELATED VALIDITY; ELECTRONIC QUESTIONNAIRE; FEMALE; GENERAL HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAPER QUESTIONNAIRE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SHORT FORM 12; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; VERY ELDERLY; WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITIES OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX;

AGREEMENT; DATA COLLECTION; ELECTRONIC; RELIABILITY; TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY; TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF REPORT;

EID: 84896498735     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: 15328406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.008     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Marx R.G., Menezes A., Horovitz L., et al. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:730.
2. Bellamy N., Buchanan W.W., Goldsmith C.H., et al. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988, 15(12):1833.
3. Davies G.M., Watson D.J., Bellamy N. Comparison of the responsiveness and relative effect size of the western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the short-form Medical Outcomes Study Survey in a randomized, clinical trial of osteoarthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res 1999, 12(3):172.
4. Ehrich E.W., Davies G.M., Watson D.J., et al. Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2000, 27(11):2635.
5. Ware J., Kosinski M., Keller S.D. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996, 34(3):220.
6. Drummond M. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 2001, 33(5):344.
7. Bonett D.G. Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Stat Med 2002, 21(9):1331.
8. Portney L.G., Watkins M.P. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice 1993, Appleton & Lange, Norwalk (Conn).
9. Stratford P.W., Goldsmith C.H. Use of the standard error as a reliability index of interest: an applied example using elbow flexor strength data. Phys Ther 1997, 77(7):745.
10. Shervin N., Dorrwchter J., Bragdon C.R., et al. Comparison of paper and computer-based questionnaire modes for measuring health outcomes in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2011, 93:285.
11. Kongsved S.M., Basnov M., Hom-Christensen K., et al. Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: a randomized study of Internet versus paper-and-pencil versions. J Med Internet Res 2007, 9(3):e25.
12. Basnov M., Kongsved S.M., Bech P., et al. Reliability of short form-36 in an Internet and a pen-and-paper version. Inform Health Soc Care 2009, 34(1):53.
13. 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(3):459.
14. Olajos-Clow J., Minard J., Szpiro K., et al. Validation of an electronic version of the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Respir Med 2010, 104(5):658.
15. Theiler R., Bischoff-Ferrari H.A., Good M., et al. Responsiveness of the electronic touch screen WOMAC 3.1 OA Index in a short term clinical trial with rofecoxib. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2004, 12(11):912.
16. Chen T.H., Li L., Sigle J.M., et al. Crossover randomized controlled trial of the electronic version of the Chinese SF-36. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2007, 8(8):604.
17. Ryan J.M., Corry J.R., Attewell R., et al. A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Qual Life Res 2002, 11(1):19.
18. Caro J.J., Caro I., Caro J., et al. Does electronic implementation of questionnaires used in asthma alter responses compared to paper implementation?. Qual Life Res 2001, 10(8):683.
19. Wilson A.S., Kitas G.D., Carruthers D.M., et al. Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: an initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002, 41(3):268.
20. Bellamy N., Wilson C., Hendrikz J., et al. Osteoarthritis Index delivered by mobile phone (m-WOMAC) is valid, reliable, and responsive. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64(2):182. EDC Study Group.