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
Comparative Study
. 2014 Apr 25;16(4):e115.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.3330.

Electronic versus paper-based assessment of health-related quality of life specific to HIV disease: reliability study of the PROQOL-HIV questionnaire

Martin Duracinsky  1 , Christophe Lalanne, Cécile Goujard, Susan Herrmann, Christian Cheung-Lung, Jean-Paul Brosseau, Yannick Schwartz, Olivier Chassany
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Electronic versus paper-based assessment of health-related quality of life specific to HIV disease: reliability study of the PROQOL-HIV questionnaire

Martin Duracinsky et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) provide quick and usually reliable assessments of patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL).

Objective: An electronic version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Quality of Life-human immunodeficiency virus (PROQOL-HIV) questionnaire was developed, and its face validity and reliability were assessed using standard psychometric methods.

Methods: A sample of 80 French outpatients (66% male, 52/79; mean age 46.7 years, SD 10.9) were recruited. Paper-based and electronic questionnaires were completed in a randomized crossover design (2-7 day interval). Biomedical data were collected. Questionnaire version and order effects were tested on full-scale scores in a 2-way ANOVA with patients as random effects. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, with 95% confidence interval) for each dimension. Usability testing was carried out from patients' survey reports, specifically, general satisfaction, ease of completion, quality and clarity of user interface, and motivation to participate in follow-up PROQOL-HIV electronic assessments.

Results: Questionnaire version and administration order effects (N=59 complete cases) were not significant at the 5% level, and no interaction was found between these 2 factors (P=.94). Reliability indexes were acceptable, with Pearson correlations greater than .7 and ICCs ranging from .708 to .939; scores were not statistically different between the two versions. A total of 63 (79%) complete patients' survey reports were available, and 55% of patients (30/55) reported being satisfied and interested in electronic assessment of their HRQL in clinical follow-up. Individual ratings of PROQOL-HIV user interface (85%-100% of positive responses) confirmed user interface clarity and usability.

Conclusions: The electronic PROQOL-HIV introduces minor modifications to the original paper-based version, following International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) ePRO Task Force guidelines, and shows good reliability and face validity. Patients can complete the computerized PROQOL-HIV questionnaire and the scores from the paper or electronic versions share comparable accuracy and interpretation.

Keywords: HIV; electronic records; patient-reported outcomes; quality of life; reliability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Screenshot of the Web interface for the English version of the PROQOL-HIV questionnaire.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Participant flowchart.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Individual scores (N=59) on electronic and paper versions of the PROQOL-HIV questionnaire for the physical health and symptoms (PHS) dimension. Individual points are displayed with alpha transparency so that darker symbols indicate a higher number of identical pairs of scores. The straight line represents the ordinary least squares regression line.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Bland-Altman plot showing the difference between scores of the electronic and paper versions as a function of average physical health and symptoms scores. The upper and lower dashed horizontal lines represent limits of agreement. A Lowess smoother (solid thicker black line) has been added to differentiate local irregularities on the distribution of scores.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Reiser SJ. The clinical record in medicine. Part 1: Learning from cases. Ann Intern Med. 1991 May 15;114(10):902–7. - PubMed
    1. Tang PC, LaRosa MP, Gorden SM. Use of computer-based records, completeness of documentation, and appropriateness of documented clinical decisions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999 Jun;6(3):245–51. http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=10332657 - PMC - PubMed
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration . Guidance for Industry: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration; 2009. [2014-02-12]. 6NKQY89wp http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. - PubMed
    1. Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. BMJ. 2002 May 18;324(7347):1193–4. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/12016186 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL, Abdul Nazir CP. Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2011 Oct;2(4):137–44. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.86879. http://www.picronline.org/article.asp?issn=2229-3485;year=2011;volume=2;... - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types