Comparison between electronic and paper versions of patient-reported outcome measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an observational study with a cross-over administration. Issue 12 (18th December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nishimura, Koichi; Kusunose, Masaaki; Sanda, Ryo; Tsuji, Yousuke; Hasegawa, Yoshinori; Oga, Toru
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 9:Issue 12(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-12-18
• Subjects: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) -- patient-reported outcome (PRO) -- the COPD assessment test (CAT) -- the evaluating respiratory symptoms in COPD (E-RS) -- health status; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032767
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: A wide range of electronic devices can be used for data collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although comparisons between electronic and paper-based PRO measures have been undertaken in asthmatics, it is currently uncertain whether electronic questionnaires work equally as well as paper versions in elderly subjects with COPD. The aim of this study was to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS) and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT). Design: A randomised cross-over design was used to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the two tools. The interval between the two administrations was 1 week. Setting: Electronic versions were self-administered under supervision using a tablet computer at our outpatient clinic (secondary care hospital in Japan) while paper questionnaires completed at home were requested to be returned by mail. It was intended that half of the patients completed the electronic versions of both questionnaires first, followed by the paper versions while the other half completed the paper versions first. Participants: Eighty-one subjects with stable COPD were included. Results: The E-RS total scores (possible range 0–40) were 6.8±7.4 and 5.0±6.6 in the paper-based and electronic versions, respectively, and the CAT scores (possible range 0–40) were 10.0±7.4 and 8.6±7.8. In both questionnaires, higher scores indicate worse status. The relationship between electronic and paper versions showed significant reliability for both the E-RS total score and CAT score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.82 and 0.89, respectively; both p<0.001). However, both the E-RS total and CAT scores were significantly higher in the paper versions (p<0.05). Conclusions: In both cases, the two versions of the same questionnaire cannot be used interchangeably even though they have both been validated.