Measurement equivalence and feasibility of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: paper-and-pencil versus touch-screen administration

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Wen-Miin Liang⁷  Yi-Chun Yeh⁷  Tsai-Chung Li⁷  Jong-Yi Wang³  Hsueh-Chun Lin¹  Hsi-Chin Wu⁵  Chiao-Ling Peng²  Chih-Hung Chang⁶  Yu-Jun Chang⁴ 

[1] Department of Health Risk Management, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan;Graduate Institute of Public Health, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan;Department of Health Services Administration, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan;Epidemiology and Biostatistics Center, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan;School of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan;Buehler Center on Aging, Health & Society, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA;Biostatistics Center, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan

关键词: Paper-and-pencil;    Touch-screen;    Cross-over design;    Feasibility;    Equivalence;    EORTC QLQ-PR25;    Prostate cancer;    Health-related quality of life;   

Others  :  820405
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-12-23

 received in 2013-07-04, accepted in 2014-02-14,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Objective

We assessed the measurement equivalence and feasibility of the paper-and-pencil and touch-screen modes of administration of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-PR25, a commonly used questionnaire to evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with prostate cancer in Taiwan.

Methods

A cross-over design study was conducted in 99 prostate cancer patients at an urology outpatient clinic. Descriptive exact and global agreement percentages, intraclass correlation, and equivalence test based on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) approach were used to examine the equity of HRQOL scores between these two modes of administration. We also evaluated the feasibility of computerized assessment based on patients’ acceptability and preference. Additionally, we used Rasch rating scale model to assess differential item functioning (DIF) between the two modes of administration.

Results

The percentages of global agreement in all domains were greater than 85% in the EORTC QLQ-PR25. All results from equivalence tests were significant, except for Sexual functioning, indicating good equivalence. Only one item exhibited DIF between the two modes. Although nearly 80% of the study patients had no prior computer-use experience, the overall proportion of acceptance and preference for the touch-screen mode were quite high and there was no significant difference across age groups or between computer-use experience groups.

Conclusions

The study results showed that the data obtained from the modes of administration were equivalent. The touch-screen mode of administration can be a feasible and suitable alternative to the paper-and-pencil mode for assessment of patient-reported outcomes in patients with prostate cancer.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Chang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Chang CH: Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies. Qual Life Res 2007, 16(Suppl 1):157-166.
• [2]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.
• [3]Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E: Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin 2012, 62:337-347.
• [4]Young NL, Varni JW, Snider L, McCormick A, Sawatzky B, Scott M, King G, Hetherington R, Sears E, Nicholas D: The Internet is valid and reliable for child-report: an example using the Activities Scale for Kids (ASK) and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:314-320.
• [5]Luckett T, Butow PN, King MT: Improving patient outcomes through the routine use of patient-reported data in cancer clinics: future directions. Psychooncology 2009, 18:1129-1138.
• [6]Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, Lenderking WR, Cella D, Basch E: Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 2009, 12:419-429.
• [7]de Bree R, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Keizer AL, Houffelaar A, Leemans CR: Touch screen computer-assisted health-related quality of life and distress data collection in head and neck cancer patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2008, 33:138-142.
• [8]Mullen KH, Berry DL, Zierler BK: Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part II: acceptability and usability. Oncol Nurs Forum 2004, 31:E84-E89.
• [9]Matthew AG, Currie KL, Irvine J, Ritvo P, Santa Mina D, Jamnicky L, Nam R, Trachtenberg J: Serial personal digital assistant data capture of health-related quality of life: a randomized controlled trial in a prostate cancer clinic. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5:38. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Salaffi F, Gasparini S, Grassi W: The use of computer touch-screen technology for the collection of patient-reported outcome data in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with standardized paper questionnaires. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2009, 27:459-468.
• [11]Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Taiwan: Taiwan cancer registry annual report. Taipei: Taiwan Cancer Registry; 2013.
• [12]Chie WC, Yu CC, Yu HJ: Reliability and validity of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 in assessing quality of life of prostate cancer patients. Urol Sci 2010, 21:118-125.
• [13]van Andel G, Bottomley A, Fossa SD, Efficace F, Coens C, Guerif S, Kynaston H, Gontero P, Thalmann G, Akdas A, et al.: An international field study of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: a questionnaire for assessing the health-related quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2008, 44:2418-2424.
• [14]Arraras JI, Villafranca E, Arias de la Vega F, Romero P, Rico M, Vila M, Asin G, Chicata V, Dominguez MA, Lainez N: The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire for patients with prostate cancer: EORTC QLQ-PR25. Validation study for Spanish patients. Clin Transl Oncol 2009, 11:160-164.
• [15]Chang YJ, Liang WM, Wu HC, Lin HC, Wang JY, Li TC, Yeh YC, Chang CH: Psychometric evaluation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 for HRQOL assessment in prostate cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012, 10:96. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A: The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. 3rd edition. Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.
• [17]Lin HC, Wu HC, Chang CH, Li TC, Liang WM, Wang JY: Development of a real-time clinical decision support system upon the Web MVC-based architecture for prostate cancer treatment. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011, 106:249-259.
• [18]Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB, Cull A, Gould A, Forman D, Perren T, Stead M, Brown J, Selby PJ: Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17:998-1007.
• [19]Bartko JJ: On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychol Bull 1976, 83:762-765.
• [20]Stokdijk M, Biegstraaten M, Ormel W, de Boer YA, Veeger HE, Rozing PM: Determining the optimal flexion-extension axis of the elbow in vivo - a study of interobserver and intraobserver reliability. J Biomech 2000, 33:1139-1145.
• [21]Limentani GB, Ringo MC, Ye F, Berquist ML, McSorley EO: Beyond the t-test: statistical equivalence testing. Anal Chem 2005, 77:221A-226A.
• [22]Tunes Da Silva G, Logan BR, Klein JP: Methods for equivalence and noninferiority testing. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009, 15:120-127.
• [23]Kong L, Kohberger RC, Koch GG: Type I error and power in noninferiority/equivalence trials with correlated multiple endpoints: an example from vaccine development trials. J Biopharm Stat 2004, 14:893-907.
• [24]Greene CJ, Morland LA, Durkalski VL, Frueh BC: Noninferiority and equivalence designs: issues and implications for mental health research. J Trauma Stress 2008, 21:433-439.
• [25]Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J: Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol 1998, 16:139-144.
• [26]Maringwa JT, Quinten C, King M, Ringash J, Osoba D, Coens C, Martinelli F, Vercauteren J, Cleeland CS, Flechtner H, et al.: Minimal important differences for interpreting health-related quality of life scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 in lung cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials. Support Care Cancer 2011, 19:1753-1760.
• [27]Pickard AS, Dalal MR, Bushnell DM: A comparison of depressive symptoms in stroke and primary care: applying Rasch models to evaluate the center for epidemiologic studies-depression scale. Value Health 2006, 9:59-64.
• [28]Conrad KJ, Smith EV Jr: International conference on objective measurement: applications of Rasch analysis in health care. Med Care 2004, 42:11-16.
• [29]Embretson SE, Reise SP: Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
• [30]Hambelton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ: Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. London: Sage; 1991.
• [31]Bond TG, Fox CM: Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001.
• [32]Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Parasuraman B: Electronic versus paper questionnaires: a further comparison in persons with asthma. J Asthma 2003, 40:751-762.
• [33]The EORTC Quality of Life Groups’ Website [http://groups.eortc.be/qol/faq?tid=12 webcite]. Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; Accessed January 20, 2014
• [34]US Food and Drug Administration: Guidance for Industry, on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Rockville, MD: U.S: Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; 2009.
• [35]Mills EJ, Chan AW, Wu P, Vail A, Guyatt GH, Altman DG: Design, analysis, and presentation of crossover trials. Trials 2009, 10:27. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Maclure M: The case-crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am J Epidemiol 1991, 133:144-153.
• [37]Hejazi J, Rastmanesh R, Taleban FA, Molana SH, Ehtejab G: A pilot clinical trial of radioprotective effects of curcumin supplementation in patients with prostate cancer. J Cancer Sci Ther 2013, 5:320-324.
• [38]Steffen T, Seney M: Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the 36-item short-form health survey, and the unified Parkinson disease rating scale in people with parkinsonism. Phys Ther 2008, 88:733-746.
• [39]Hwang HF, Liang WM, Chiu YN, Lin MR: Suitability of the WHOQOL-BREF for community-dwelling older people in Taiwan. Age Ageing 2003, 32:593-600.
• [40]Wang TF, Lu CH, Chen IJ, Yu S: Sexual knowledge, attitudes and activity of older people in Taipei, Taiwan. J Clin Nurs 2008, 17:443-450.
• [41]Wang D, Bakhai A: Clinical Trials: A Practical Guide to Design, Analysis and Reporting. Edited by Wang D, Bakhai A. London: Remedica; 2006:91-99.
• [42]Bowling A: Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf) 2005, 27:281-291.
• [43]Pouwer F, Snoek FJ, van der Ploeg HM, Heine RJ, Brand AN: A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the Well-being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Qual Life Res 1998, 7:33-38.
• [44]Kleinman L, Leidy NK, Crawley J, Bonomi A, Schoenfeld P: A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Med Care 2001, 39:181-189.
• [45]Greenwood MC, Hakim AJ, Carson E, Doyle DV: Touch-screen computer systems in the rheumatology clinic offer a reliable and user-friendly means of collecting quality-of-life and outcome data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2006, 45:66-71.
• [46]Millsopp L, Frackleton S, Lowe D, Rogers SN: A feasibility study of computer-assisted health-related quality of life data collection in patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006, 35:761-764.
• [47]Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, Wever LD, Aaronson NK: Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002, 288:3027-3034.
• [48]Henderson A, Andreyev HJ, Stephens R, Dearnaley D: Patient and physician reporting of symptoms and health-related quality of life in trials of treatment for early prostate cancer: considerations for future studies. Clin Oncol 2006, 18:735-743.
• [49]Velikova G, Brown JM, Smith AB, Selby PJ: Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor-patient interactions in oncology. Br J Cancer 2002, 86:51-59.