Skip to main content
PMC home page
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases logoLink to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
. 2005 Apr 20;64(10):1480–1484. doi: 10.1136/ard.2004.030437

Performance of health status measures with a pen based personal digital assistant

T Kvien 1, P Mowinckel 1, T Heiberg 1, K Dammann 1, O Dale 1, G Aanerud 1, T Alme 1, T Uhlig 1
PMCID: PMC1755226  PMID: 15843456

Abstract

Background: Increasing use of self reported health status in clinical practice and research, as well as patient appreciation of monitoring fluctuations of health over time, suggest a need for more frequent collection of data. Electronic use of health status measures in the follow up of patients is a possible way to achieve this.

Objective: To compare self reported health status measures in a personal digital assistant (PDA) version and a paper/pencil version for test–retest reliability, agreement between scores, and feasibility.

Methods: 30 patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (mean age 61.6 years, range 49.8 to 70.0; mean disease duration, 16.7 years; 63% female; 67% rheumatoid factor positive; 46.6% on disease modifying antirheumatic drugs) completed self reported health status measures (pain, fatigue, and global health on visual analogue scales (VAS), rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index, modified health assessment questionnaire, SF-36) in a conventional paper based questionnaire version and on a PDA (HP iPAQ, model h5450). Completion was repeated after five to seven days.

Results: Test–retest reliability was similar, as evaluated by the Bland–Altman approach, the coefficient of variation, and intraclass correlation coefficients. The scores showed acceptable agreement, but with a slight tendency to higher scores on VAS with the PDA than the paper/pencil version. No significant differences were seen for measures of feasibility (time to complete, satisfaction score), but 65.5% preferred PDA, 20.7% preferred paper, and 13.8% had no preference.

Conclusions: The clinimetric performance of paper/pencil versions of self reported health status measures was similar to an electronic version, using an inexpensive PDA.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (74.1 KB).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

 Agreement between scores obtained by the PDA and paper versions illustrated by Bland–Altman plots for rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index (RADAI) (panel A) and pain visual analogue score (VAS) (panel B) at T1.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Al-Ubaydli Mohammad. Handheld computers. BMJ. 2004 May 15;328(7449):1181–1184. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Athale Ninad, Sturley Ann, Skoczen Steven, Kavanaugh Arthur, Lenert Leslie. A web-compatible instrument for measuring self-reported disease activity in arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2004 Feb;31(2):223–228. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bellamy N., Kirwan J., Boers M., Brooks P., Strand V., Tugwell P., Altman R., Brandt K., Dougados M., Lequesne M. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol. 1997 Apr;24(4):799–802. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bland J. M., Altman D. G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bliven B. D., Kaufman S. E., Spertus J. A. Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(1):15–22. doi: 10.1023/a:1016740312904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Carlson L. E., Speca M., Hagen N., Taenzer P. Computerized quality-of-life screening in a cancer pain clinic. J Palliat Care. 2001 Spring;17(1):46–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chan S. S., Chu C. P., Cheng B. C., Chen P. P. Data management using the personal digital assistant in an acute pain service. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2004 Feb;32(1):81–86. doi: 10.1177/0310057X0403200113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Felson D. T., Anderson J. J., Boers M., Bombardier C., Chernoff M., Fried B., Furst D., Goldsmith C., Kieszak S., Lightfoot R. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials. Arthritis Rheum. 1993 Jun;36(6):729–740. doi: 10.1002/art.1780360601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fransen J., Langenegger T., Michel B. A., Stucki G. Feasibility and validity of the RADAI, a self-administered rheumatoid arthritis disease activity index. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000 Mar;39(3):321–327. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/39.3.321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Geborek P., Crnkic M., Petersson I. F., Saxne T., South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group Etanercept, infliximab, and leflunomide in established rheumatoid arthritis: clinical experience using a structured follow up programme in southern Sweden. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002 Sep;61(9):793–798. doi: 10.1136/ard.61.9.793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jamison R. N., Raymond S. A., Levine J. G., Slawsby E. A., Nedeljkovic S. S., Katz N. P. Electronic diaries for monitoring chronic pain: 1-year validation study. Pain. 2001 Apr;91(3):277–285. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00450-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Jamison Robert N., Gracely Richard H., Raymond Stephen A., Levine Jonathan G., Marino Barbara, Herrmann Timothy J., Daly Margaret, Fram David, Katz Nathaniel P. Comparative study of electronic vs. paper VAS ratings: a randomized, crossover trial using healthy volunteers. Pain. 2002 Sep;99(1-2):341–347. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00178-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kirwan John, Heiberg Turid, Hewlett Sarah, Hughes Rod, Kvien Tore, Ahlmèn Monica, Boers Maarten, Minnock Patricia, Saag Kenneth, Shea Beverley. Outcomes from the Patient Perspective Workshop at OMERACT 6. J Rheumatol. 2003 Apr;30(4):868–872. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kleinman L., Leidy N. K., 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 Feb;39(2):181–189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200102000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Koop Andreas, Mösges Ralph. The use of handheld computers in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2002 Oct;23(5):469–480. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(02)00224-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kvien T. K., Kaasa S., Smedstad L. M. Performance of the Norwegian SF-36 Health Survey in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. II. A comparison of the SF-36 with disease-specific measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1077–1086. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00099-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kvien T. K., Uhlig T. The Oslo experience with arthritis registries. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003 Sep-Oct;21(5 Suppl 31):S118–S122. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mosley-Williams Angelia, Williams Carl A. Validation of a computer version of the American College of Rheumatology patient assessment questionnaire for the autonomous self-entry of self-report data in an urban rheumatology clinic. Arthritis Rheum. 2004 Jan;50(1):332–333. doi: 10.1002/art.11497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Nyholm Dag, Kowalski Jan, Aquilonius Sten-Magnus. Wireless real-time electronic data capture for self-assessment of motor function and quality of life in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord. 2004 Apr;19(4):446–451. doi: 10.1002/mds.10690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Pincus T., Summey J. A., Soraci S. A., Jr, Wallston K. A., Hummon N. P. Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum. 1983 Nov;26(11):1346–1353. doi: 10.1002/art.1780261107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Quest Enid, Aanerud Gerd Jenny, Kaarud Sylvia, Collins Shirley, Leong Amye, Smedeby Birgitta, Denny-Waters Anne, Mellors Raymond, Taylor Deborah, de Wit Maarten. Patients' perspective. J Rheumatol. 2003 Apr;30(4):884–885. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Saag Kenneth G. OMERACT 6 brings new perspectives to rheumatology measurement research. J Rheumatol. 2003 Apr;30(4):639–641. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Saleh Khaled J., Radosevich David M., Kassim Rida A., Moussa Mohamed, Dykes Darrell, Bottolfson Helena, Gioe Terence J., Robinson Harry. Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys. J Orthop Res. 2002 Nov;20(6):1146–1151. doi: 10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00059-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Stone Arthur A., Shiffman Saul, Schwartz Joseph E., Broderick Joan E., Hufford Michael R. Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries. Control Clin Trials. 2003 Apr;24(2):182–199. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(02)00320-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. VanDenKerkhof Elizabeth G., Goldstein David H., Lane Jeremy, Rimmer Michael J., Van Dijk Janice P. Using a personal digital assistant enhances gathering of patient data on an acute pain management service: a pilot study. Can J Anaesth. 2003 Apr;50(4):368–375. doi: 10.1007/BF03021034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Velikova G., Wright E. P., Smith A. B., Cull A., Gould A., Forman D., Perren T., Stead M., Brown J., Selby P. J. Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Mar;17(3):998–1007. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.3.998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Williams Carl A., Templin Thomas, Mosley-Williams Angelia D. Usability of a computer-assisted interview system for the unaided self-entry of patient data in an urban rheumatology clinic. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004 Apr 2;11(4):249–259. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Wilson A. S., Kitas G. D., Carruthers D. M., Reay C., Skan J., Harris S., Treharne G. J., Young S. P., Bacon P. A. Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: an initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002 Mar;41(3):268–273. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/41.3.268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wolfe F., Lassere M., van der Heijde D., Stucki G., Suarez-Almazor M., Pincus T., Eberhardt K., Kvien T. K., Symmons D., Silman A. Preliminary core set of domains and reporting requirements for longitudinal observational studies in rheumatology. J Rheumatol. 1999 Feb;26(2):484–489. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Wolfe F., Pincus T. Listening to the patient: a practical guide to self-report questionnaires in clinical care. Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Sep;42(9):1797–1808. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199909)42:9<1797::AID-ANR2>3.0.CO;2-Q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES