nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

21.11.2015

Evaluation of mode equivalence of the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument, LASA Quality of Life, and Subjective Significance Questionnaire items administered by Web, interactive voice response system (IVRS), and paper

verfasst von: Antonia V. Bennett, Kathleen Keenoy, Marwan Shouery, Ethan Basch, Larissa K. Temple

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 5/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the equivalence of patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey responses across Web, interactive voice response system (IVRS), and paper modes of administration.

Methods

Postoperative colorectal cancer patients with home Web/e-mail and phone were randomly assigned to one of the eight study groups: Groups 1–6 completed the survey via Web, IVRS, and paper, in one of the six possible orders; Groups 7–8 completed the survey twice, either by Web or by IVRS. The 20-item survey, including the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument (BFI), the LASA Quality of Life (QOL) scale, and the Subjective Significance Questionnaire (SSQ) adapted to bowel function, was completed from home on consecutive days. Mode equivalence was assessed by comparison of mean scores across modes and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and was compared to the test–retest reliability of Web and IVRS.

Results

Of 170 patients, 157 completed at least one survey and were included in analysis. Patients had mean age 56 (SD = 11), 53 % were male, 81 % white, 53 % colon, and 47 % rectal cancer; 78 % completed all assigned surveys. Mean scores for BFI total score, BFI subscale scores, LASA QOL, and adapted SSQ varied by mode by less than one-third of a score point. ICCs across mode were: BFI total score (Web–paper = 0.96, Web–IVRS = 0.97, paper–IVRS = 0.97); BFI subscales (range = 0.88–0.98); LASA QOL (Web–paper = 0.98, Web–IVRS = 0.78, paper–IVRS = 0.80); and SSQ (Web–paper = 0.92, Web–IVRS = 0.86, paper–IVRS = 0.79).

Conclusions

Mode equivalence was demonstrated for the BFI total score, BFI subscales, LASA QOL, and adapted SSQ, supporting the use of multiple modes of PRO data capture in clinical trials.

Vorheriger Artikel Whose quality of life is it anyway? Discrepancies between youth and parent health-related quality of life ratings in type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Nächster Artikel Language bias and self-rated health status among the Latino population: evidence of the influence of translation in a wording experiment

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322–333.CrossRefPubMed

Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., et al. (2009). 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 in Health, 12(4), 419–429.CrossRefPubMed

Temple, L. K., Bacik, J., Savatta, S. G., et al. (2005). The development of a validated instrument to evaluate bowel function after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, 48(7), 1353–1365.CrossRefPubMed

Chen, T. Y., Emertsen, K. J., & Laurberg, S. (2015). What are the best questionnaires to capture anorectal function after surgery in rectal cancer? Current Colorectal Cancer Reports, 11, 37–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wong, C., Chen, J., Yu, C. L., Sham, M., & Lam, C. L. (2015). Systemic review recommends the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer colorectal cancer-specific module for measuring quality of life in colorectal cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(3), 266–278.CrossRefPubMed

Locke, D. E., Decker, P. A., Sloan, J. A., et al. (2007). Validation of single-item linear analog scale assessment of quality of life in neuro-oncology patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 34(6), 628–638.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J. (1998). Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16(1), 139–144.PubMed

Bennett, A. V., Jensen, R. E., & Basch, E. (2012). Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA: Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62(5), 337–347.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRef

10.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

11.

Yarandi, H. (2004). Crossover designs and proc mixed in SAS. Paper SD04. In The proceedings of the SouthEast SAS Users Group, Nashville, TN, 2004. http://analytics.ncsu.edu/sesug/2004/SD04-Yarandi.pdf.

12.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

13.

Walters, S. J., Campbell, M. J., & Paisley, S. (2001). Methods for determining sample sizes for studies involving health-related quality of life measures: A tutorial. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 83–99.CrossRef

14.

Stratford, P. W., & Binkley, J. M. (1999). Applying the results of self-report measures to individual patients: An example using the Roland–Morris Questionnaire. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 29(4), 232–239.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Lundy, J. J., & Coons, S. J. (2011). Measurement equivalence of interactive voice response and paper versions of the EQ-5D in a cancer patient sample. Value in Health, 14(6), 867–871.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Lundy, J. J., Coons, S. J., & Aaronson, N. K. (2014). Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 229–237.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Rush, A. J., Bernstein, I. H., Trivedi, M. H., et al. (2006). An evaluation of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology and the Hamilton rating scale for depression: A sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression trial report. Biological Psychiatry, 59(6), 493–501.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Dunn, J. A., Arakawa, R., Greist, J. H., & Clayton, A. H. (2007). Assessing the onset of antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction using interactive voice response technology. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 68(4), 525–532.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Agel, J., Rockwood, T., Mundt, J. C., Greist, J. H., & Swiontkowski, M. (2001). Comparison of interactive voice response and written self-administered patient surveys for clinical research. Orthopedics, 24(12), 1155–1157.PubMed

20.

Bjorner, J. B., Rose, M., Gandek, B., Stone, A. A., Junghaenel, D. U., & Ware, J. E, Jr. (2014). Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(1), 108–113.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Evaluation of mode equivalence of the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument, LASA Quality of Life, and Subjective Significance Questionnaire items administered by Web, interactive voice response system (IVRS), and paper
verfasst von: Antonia V. Bennett
Kathleen Keenoy
Marwan Shouery
Ethan Basch
Larissa K. Temple
Publikationsdatum: 21.11.2015
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 5/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1162-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2016

Normative values of EQ-5D-5L: in a Spanish representative population sample from Spanish Health Survey, 2011

Gender differences in the effect of social support on health-related quality of life: results of a population-based prospective cohort study in old age in Germany

Measuring the impact of informal elderly caregiving: a systematic review of tools

Treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes patients taking empagliflozin compared with patients taking glimepiride

The burden of neck pain: its meaning for persons with neck pain and healthcare providers, explored by concept mapping

Application of the eight-item modified medical outcomes study social support survey in Japan: a national representative cross-sectional study

Premium Partner