Inter-method reliability of paper surveys and computer assisted telephone interviews in a randomized controlled trial of yoga for low back pain

BMC Research Notes

Robert B Saper¹  Karen J Sherman²  Janice Weinberg³  Christian J Cerrada⁴ 

[1] Department of Family Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, 1 Boston Medical Center Place, Dowling 5 South, Boston, MA 02118, USA;Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA;Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02118, USA;Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, 2001 N Soto Street, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90032, USA

关键词: CATI;    Back pain;    Reliability;    Survey methods;   

Others  :  1133926
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-7-227

 received in 2013-10-22, accepted in 2014-04-02,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Little is known about the reliability of different methods of survey administration in low back pain trials. This analysis was designed to determine the reliability of responses to self-administered paper surveys compared to computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) for the primary outcomes of pain intensity and back-related function, and secondary outcomes of patient satisfaction, SF-36, and global improvement among participants enrolled in a study of yoga for chronic low back pain.

Results

Pain intensity, back-related function, and both physical and mental health components of the SF-36 showed excellent reliability at all three time points; ICC scores ranged from 0.82 to 0.98. Pain medication use showed good reliability; kappa statistics ranged from 0.68 to 0.78. Patient satisfaction had moderate to excellent reliability; ICC scores ranged from 0.40 to 0.86. Global improvement showed poor reliability at 6 weeks (ICC = 0.24) and 12 weeks (ICC = 0.10).

Conclusion

CATI shows excellent reliability for primary outcomes and at least some secondary outcomes when compared to self-administered paper surveys in a low back pain yoga trial. Having two reliable options for data collection may be helpful to increase response rates for core outcomes in back pain trials.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01761617. Date of trial registration: December 4, 2012.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Cerrada et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Cook C: Mode of administration bias. J Man Manip Ther 2010, 18:61-63.
• [2]de Leeuw ED: To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. J Off Stat 2005, 21:233-255.
• [3]Bowling A: Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health 2005, 27:281-291.
• [4]Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Parasuraman B: Electronic versus paper questionnaires: a further comparison in persons with asthma. J Asthma 2003, 40:751-762.
• [5]Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S: Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 2008, 11:322-333.
• [6]Lungenhausen M, Lange S, Maier C, Schaub C, Trampisch HJ, Endres HG: Randomised controlled comparison of the health survey short form (SF-12) and the graded chronic pain scale (GCPS) in telephone interviews versus self-administered questionnaires: are the results equivalent? BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Fowler FJ, Gallagher PM, Stringfellow VL, Zaslavsky AM, Thompson JW, Cleary PD: Using telephone interviews to reduce nonresponse bias to mail surveys of health plan members. Med Care 2002, 40:190-200.
• [8]Saper RB, Boah AR, Keosaian J, Cerrada C, Weinberg J, Sherman KJ: Comparing once-versus twice-weekly yoga classes for chronic low back pain in predominantly low income minorities: a randomized dosing trial. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2013, 2013:658030.
• [9]StudyTRAX [http://www.sciencetrax.com/studytrax/ webcite]
• [10]Bombardier C: Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine 2000, 25:3100-3103.
• [11]Von Korff M, Jensen MP, Karoly P: Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research. Spine 2000, 25:3140-3151.
• [12]Ritter PL, González VM, Laurent DD, Lorig KR: Measurement of pain using the visual numeric scale. J Rheumatol 2006, 33:574-580.
• [13]Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB: Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine 1995, 20:1899-1908.
• [14]Roland M, Fairbank J: The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 2000, 25:3115-3124.
• [15]Ware JE: SF-36 health survey update. Spine 2000, 25(24):3130-3139.
• [16]Hudak PL, Wright JG: The characteristics of patient satisfaction measures. Spine 2000, 25:3167-3177.
• [17]Koch GG: Intraclass correlation coefficient. In Encyclopedia of statistical sciences. Edited by Kotz S, Johnson NL. New York: John Wiley; 1982:213-217.
• [18]Klevens J, Trick WE, Kee R, Angulo F, Garcia D, Sadowski LS: Concordance in the measurement of quality of life and health indicators between two methods of computer-assisted interviews: self-administered and by telephone. Qual Life Res 2011, 20:1179-1186.
• [19]Feveile H, Olsen O, Hogh A: A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: response patterns in a survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7:27. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Dillman DA, Sangster RL, Tarnai J, Rockwood TH: Understanding differences in people’s answers to telephone and mail surveys. New Dir Eval 1996, 1996:45-61.
• [21]Duncan P, Reker D, Kwon S, Lai SM, Studenski S, Perera S, Alfrey C, Marquez J: Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Med Care 2005, 43:507-515.
• [22]Aitken JF, Youl PH, Janda M, Elwood M, Ring IT, Lowe JB: Comparability of skin screening histories obtained by telephone interviews and mailed questionnaires: a randomized crossover study. Am J Epidemiol 2004, 160:598-604.