Abstract
Introduction
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment is becoming increasingly important after joint replacement surgery. However, PRO data collection, questionnaire handling, and data processing are time consuming and costly process. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficiency of PRO assessment using tablet computers compared with traditional paper questionnaires in a total hip or knee arthroplasty (THR or TKR) population.
Materials and methods
We recruited 100 patients from outpatient clinics attending for routine follow-up 2 months, 1 year, or 5 years after THR or TKR. Fifty patients completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis score and Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) questionnaires on paper, and 50 patients completed these on a tablet computer. Questionnaire completion was timed for each PRO assessment and for manual data entry of the paper questionnaires into the database. The t test, Mann–Whitney U test, Fisher’s exact test, and Wilcoxon test were used for statistical analysis.
Results
The mean age of the patients was 67.0 years (standard deviation 10.3 years), with no significant difference between the two groups. Median time for WOMAC questionnaire completion (including data entry for the paper questionnaires) was 197 s for the paper version and 117 s for the tablet version (p < 0.001). Median times for completion of FJS-12 were comparable for paper and tablet versions (32 vs. 37 s). We did not find a significant correlation between age and time for questionnaire completion.
Conclusion
Electronic PRO data collection can substantially decrease time, logistics, and effort associated with questionnaire completion in daily clinical practice. It is also acceptable for use in an older arthroplasty population.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (2014). http://www.shpr.se/. Accessed 02 July 2014
National Joint Registry (2014). http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/. Accessed 02 July 2014
Implantat-Register S (2014). http://www.siris-implant.ch. Accessed 02 July 2014
Rogausch A et al (2009) Feasibility and acceptance of electronic quality of life assessment in general practice: an implementation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:51
Crane HM et al (2007) Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in an HIV clinic setting: the first 100 patients. Curr HIV Res 5(1):109–118
Kinnaman JE, Farrell AD, Bisconer SW (2006) Evaluation of the computerized assessment system for psychotherapy evaluation and research (CASPER) as a measure of treatment effectiveness with psychiatric inpatients. Assessment 13(2):154–167
Velikova G et al (1999) Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 17(3):998–1007
Taenzer PA et al (1997) Computerized quality-of-life screening in an oncology clinic. Cancer Pract 5(3):168–175
Theiler R et al (2004) Responsiveness of the electronic touch screen WOMAC 3.1 OA Index in a short term clinical trial with rofecoxib. Osteoarthr Cartil OARS Osteoarthr Res Soc 12(11):912–916
Giesinger JM et al (2013) Development of a computer-adaptive version of the forgotten joint score. J Arthroplasty 28(3):418–422
Lundy JJ, Coons SJ, Aaronson NK (2014) Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 23(1):229–237
Clayton JA et al (2013) Web-based versus paper administration of common ophthalmic questionnaires: comparison of subscale scores. Ophthalmology 120(10):2151–2159
Bjorner JB et al (2014) Difference in method of administration did not significantly impact item response: an IRT-based analysis from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) initiative. Qual Life Res 23(1):217–227
(2014) PROMIS-patient reported outcomes measurement information system. http://www.nihpromis.org/
Coons SJ 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 Health 12(4):419–429
Holzner B et al (2012) The Computer-based Health Evaluation Software (CHES): a software for electronic patient-reported outcome monitoring. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 12:126
Bellamy N et al (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15(12):1833–1840
Bischoff-Ferrari HA et al (2005) Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index. Ann Rheum Dis 64(1):80–84
Behrend H et al (2012) The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 27(3): 430–436 e1
Thienpont E et al (2014) Joint awareness in different types of knee arthroplasty evaluated with the forgotten joint score. J Arthroplasty 29(1):48–51
Nagle S, Schmidt L (2012) Computer acceptance of older adults. Work 41(Suppl 1):3541–3548
Buxton J, White M, Osoba D (1998) Patients’ experiences using a computerized program with a touch-sensitive video monitor for the assessment of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 7(6):513–519
Erharter A et al (2010) Implementation of computer-based quality-of-life monitoring in brain tumor outpatients in routine clinical practice. J Pain Symptom Manage 39(2):219–229
Velikova G et al (2004) Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 22(4):714–724
Bellamy N et al (2010) Electronic data capture using the Womac NRS 3.1 Index (m-Womac): a pilot study of repeated independent remote data capture in OA. Inflammopharmacology 18(3):107–111
Berry DL et al (2011) Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 29(8):1029–1035
Hilarius DL et al (2008) Use of health-related quality-of-life assessments in daily clinical oncology nursing practice: a community hospital-based intervention study. Cancer 113(3):628–637
Roberts N, Bradley B, Williams D (2014) Use of SMS and tablet computer improves the electronic collection of elective orthopaedic patient reported outcome measures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 96(5):348–351
Bellamy N et al (2011) Osteoarthritis Index delivered by mobile phone (m-WOMAC) is valid, reliable, and responsive. J Clin Epidemiol 64(2):182–190
Andikyan V et al (2012) A prospective study of the feasibility and acceptability of a Web-based, electronic patient-reported outcome system in assessing patient recovery after major gynecologic cancer surgery. Gynecol Oncol 127(2):273–277
de Bree R et al (2008) Touch screen computer-assisted health-related quality of life and distress data collection in head and neck cancer patients. Clin Otolaryngol 33(2):138–142
Blum D et al (2014) Feasibility and acceptance of electronic monitoring of symptoms and syndromes using a handheld computer in patients with advanced cancer in daily oncology practice. Support Care Cancer 22(9):2425–2434
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by a research grant from ‘Swiss Orthopaedics’ (Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Traumatologie-SGOT).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kesterke, N., Egeter, J., Erhardt, J.B. et al. Patient-reported outcome assessment after total joint replacement: comparison of questionnaire completion times on paper and tablet computer. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135, 935–941 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2222-x
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2222-x