Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2011 Aug 18:12:190.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-190.

Test-retest of computerized health status questionnaires frequently used in the monitoring of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized crossover trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Test-retest of computerized health status questionnaires frequently used in the monitoring of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized crossover trial

Henrik Gudbergsen et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

Abstract

Background: To compare data based on touch screen to data based on traditional paper versions of questionnaires frequently used to examine patient reported outcomes in knee osteoarthritis patients and to examine the impact of patient characteristics on this comparison

Methods: Participants were recruited from an ongoing trial (http://ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT00655941). 20 female participants, mean age 67 (SD 7), completed KOOS, VAS pain, function and patient global, SF-36, Physical Activity Scale, painDETECT, and the ADL Taxonomy. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two subgroups, completing either the paper or touch screen version first. Mean, mean differences (95% CI), median, median differences and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for all questionnaires.

Results: ICCs between data based on computerized and paper versions ranged from 0.86 to 0.99. Analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between versions of the ADL Taxonomy, but not for the remaining questionnaires. Age, computer experience or education-level had no significant impact on the results. The computerized questionnaires were reported to be easier to use.

Conclusion: The computerized questionnaires gave comparable results to answers given on paper. Patient characteristics did not influence results and implementation was feasible.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of study design.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patients' preferences for either touch screen or paper versions of HSQs in general.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kvien TK, Mowinckel P, Heiberg T, Dammann KL, Dale O, Aanerud GJ, Alme TN, Uhlig T. Performance of health status measures with a pen based personal digital assistant1. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;12:1480–1484. doi: 10.1136/ard.2004.030437. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Richter JG, Becker A, Koch T, Nixdorf M, Willers R, Monser R, Schacher B, Alten R, Specker C, Schneider M. Self-assessments of patients via Tablet PC in routine patient care: comparison with standardised paper questionnaires1. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;12:1739–1741. doi: 10.1136/ard.2008.090209. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harlin SL, Harlin RD, Sherman TI, Rozsas CM, Shafqat MS, Meyers W. Using a structured, computer-administered questionnaire for evaluating health-related quality of life in patients with chronic lower extremity wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2009;12:30–39. - PubMed
    1. Litaker D. New technology in quality of life research: are all computer-assisted approaches created equal? Qual Life Res. 2003;12:387–393. doi: 10.1023/A:1023457927406. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Thekkumpurath P, Venkateswaran C, Kumar M, Newsham A, Bennett MI. Screening for psychological distress in palliative care: performance of touch screen questionnaires compared with semistructured psychiatric interview. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;12:597–605. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.01.004. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data