Cargando…
Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study
BACKGROUND: Scrolling is a perceived barrier in the use of bring your own device (BYOD) to capture electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs). This study explored the impact of scrolling on the measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in the presence and abs...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7914324/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33638726 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00296-z |
_version_ | 1783656977035952128 |
---|---|
author | Shahraz, Saeid Pham, Tan P. Gibson, Marc De La Cruz, Marie Baara, Munther Karnik, Sachin Dell, Christopher Pease, Sheryl Nigam, Suyash Cappelleri, Joseph C. Lipset, Craig Zornow, Patrick Lee, Jeff Byrom, Bill |
author_facet | Shahraz, Saeid Pham, Tan P. Gibson, Marc De La Cruz, Marie Baara, Munther Karnik, Sachin Dell, Christopher Pease, Sheryl Nigam, Suyash Cappelleri, Joseph C. Lipset, Craig Zornow, Patrick Lee, Jeff Byrom, Bill |
author_sort | Shahraz, Saeid |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Scrolling is a perceived barrier in the use of bring your own device (BYOD) to capture electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs). This study explored the impact of scrolling on the measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in the presence and absence of scrolling. METHODS: Adult participants with a chronic condition involving daily pain completed ePROMs on four devices with different scrolling properties: a large provisioned device not requiring scrolling; two provisioned devices requiring scrolling – one with a “smart-scrolling” feature that disabled the “next” button until all information was viewed, and a second without this feature; and BYOD with smart-scrolling. The ePROMs included were the SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, and three pain measures: a visual analogue scale, a numeric response scale and a Likert scale. Participants completed English or Spanish versions according to their first language. Associations between ePROM scores were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), with lower bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) > 0.7 indicating comparability. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen English- or Spanish-speaking participants (21-75y) completed all four administrations. High associations between scrolling and non-scrolling were observed (ICCs: 0.71–0.96). The equivalence threshold was met for all but one SF-12 domain score (bodily pain; lower 95% CI: 0.65) and two EQ-5D-5L item scores (pain/discomfort, usual activities; lower 95% CI: 0.64/0.67). Age, language, and device size produced insignificant differences in scores. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement properties of PROMs are preserved even in the presence of scrolling on a handheld device. Further studies that assess scrolling impact over long-term, repeated use are recommended. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7914324 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79143242021-03-15 Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study Shahraz, Saeid Pham, Tan P. Gibson, Marc De La Cruz, Marie Baara, Munther Karnik, Sachin Dell, Christopher Pease, Sheryl Nigam, Suyash Cappelleri, Joseph C. Lipset, Craig Zornow, Patrick Lee, Jeff Byrom, Bill J Patient Rep Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Scrolling is a perceived barrier in the use of bring your own device (BYOD) to capture electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs). This study explored the impact of scrolling on the measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in the presence and absence of scrolling. METHODS: Adult participants with a chronic condition involving daily pain completed ePROMs on four devices with different scrolling properties: a large provisioned device not requiring scrolling; two provisioned devices requiring scrolling – one with a “smart-scrolling” feature that disabled the “next” button until all information was viewed, and a second without this feature; and BYOD with smart-scrolling. The ePROMs included were the SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, and three pain measures: a visual analogue scale, a numeric response scale and a Likert scale. Participants completed English or Spanish versions according to their first language. Associations between ePROM scores were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), with lower bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) > 0.7 indicating comparability. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen English- or Spanish-speaking participants (21-75y) completed all four administrations. High associations between scrolling and non-scrolling were observed (ICCs: 0.71–0.96). The equivalence threshold was met for all but one SF-12 domain score (bodily pain; lower 95% CI: 0.65) and two EQ-5D-5L item scores (pain/discomfort, usual activities; lower 95% CI: 0.64/0.67). Age, language, and device size produced insignificant differences in scores. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement properties of PROMs are preserved even in the presence of scrolling on a handheld device. Further studies that assess scrolling impact over long-term, repeated use are recommended. Springer International Publishing 2021-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7914324/ /pubmed/33638726 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00296-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Shahraz, Saeid Pham, Tan P. Gibson, Marc De La Cruz, Marie Baara, Munther Karnik, Sachin Dell, Christopher Pease, Sheryl Nigam, Suyash Cappelleri, Joseph C. Lipset, Craig Zornow, Patrick Lee, Jeff Byrom, Bill Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study |
title | Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study |
title_full | Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study |
title_fullStr | Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study |
title_full_unstemmed | Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study |
title_short | Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study |
title_sort | does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (eprom)? results of a quantitative equivalence study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7914324/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33638726 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00296-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shahrazsaeid doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT phamtanp doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT gibsonmarc doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT delacruzmarie doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT baaramunther doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT karniksachin doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT dellchristopher doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT peasesheryl doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT nigamsuyash doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT cappellerijosephc doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT lipsetcraig doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT zornowpatrick doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT leejeff doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy AT byrombill doesscrollingaffectmeasurementequivalenceofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresepromresultsofaquantitativeequivalencestudy |