Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 3/2016

01.03.2016 | Special Section: PROs in Non-Standard Settings (by invitation only)

Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis

verfasst von: Claudia Rutherford, Daniel Costa, Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Holly Rice, Liam Gabb, Madeleine King

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Technological advances in recent decades have led to the availability of new modes to administer patient-reported outcomes (PROs). To aid selecting optimal modes of administration (MOA), we undertook a systematic review to determine whether differences in bias (both size and direction) exist among modes.

Methods

We searched five electronic databases from 2004 (date of last comprehensive review on this topic) to April 2014, cross-referenced and searched reference lists. Studies that compared two or more MOA for a health-related PRO measure in adult samples were included. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria and extracted findings. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted using random-effects models.

Results

Of 5100 papers screened, 222 were considered potentially relevant and 56 met eligibility criteria. No evidence of bias was found for: (1) paper versus electronic self-complete; and (2) self-complete versus assisted MOA. Heterogeneity for paper versus electronic comparison was explained by type of construct (i.e. physical vs. psychological). Heterogeneity for self-completion versus assisted modes was in part explained by setting (clinic vs. home); the largest bias was introduced when assisted completion occurred in the clinic and follow-up was by self-completion (either electronic or paper) in the home.

Conclusions

Self-complete paper and electronic MOA can be used interchangeably for research in clinic and home settings. Self-completion and assisted completion produce equivalent scores overall, although heterogeneity may be induced by setting. These results support the use of mixed MOAs within a research study, which may be a useful strategy for reducing missing PRO data.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims. MD: US Department of Health & Human Support Food & Drug Administration.
2.
Hood, K., Robling, M., Ingledew, D., Gillespie, D., Greene, G., Ivins, R., et al. (2012). Mode of data elicitation, acquisition and response to surveys: A systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 16(27), 1–162.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Basch, E., Abernethy, A. P., Mullins, C. D., Reeve, B. B., Smith, M. L., Coons, S. J., et al. (2012). Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(34), 4249–4255.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Stukenborg, G. J., Blackhall, L., Harrison, J., Barclay, J. S., Dillon, P., Davis, M. A., et al. (2014). Cancer patient-reported outcomes assessment using wireless touch screen tablet computers. Quality of Life Research, 23(5), 1603–1607.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205.CrossRef
7.
Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 281–291.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Bernhard, J., Cella, D. F., Coates, A. S., Fallowfield, L., Ganz, P. A., Moinpour, C. M., et al. (1998). Missing quality of life data in cancer clinical trials: Serious problems and challenges. Statistics in Medicine, 17(5–7), 517–532.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Smith, A. B., King, M., Butow, P., & Olver, I. (2013). A comparison of data quality and practicality of online versus postal questionnaires in a sample of testicular cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology, 22(1), 233–237.CrossRefPubMed
10.
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 Health, 11(2), 322–333.CrossRefPubMed
11.
McColl, E., Jacoby, A., Thomas, L., Soutter, J., Bamford, C., Steen, N., et al. (2001). Design and use of questionnaires: A review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technology Assessment, 5(31), 1–256.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Puhan, M. A., Ahuja, A., Van Natta, M. L., Ackatz, L. E., & Meinert, C. (2011). Interviewer versus self-administered health-related quality of life questionnaires—Does it matter? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,. doi:10.​1186/​1477-7525-1189-1130.
13.
Kmet, L., Lee, R., & Cook, L. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Health Technology Assessment, 13, 1–294.
14.
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
15.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Oxford: Wiley.CrossRef
16.
Kongsved, S. M., Basnov, M., Holm-Christensen, K., & Hjollund, N. H. (2007). Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: A randomized study of Internet versus paper-and-pencil versions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 9(3), e25.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
17.
Reichmann, W. M., Losina, E., Seage, G. R., Arbelaez, C., Safren, S. A., Katz, J. N., et al. (2010). Does modality of survey administration impact data quality: Audio computer assisted self interview (ACASI) versus self-administered pen and paper? PLoS One, 5(1), e8728.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
Lannin, N. A., Anderson, C., Lim, J., Paice, K., Price, C., Faux, S., et al. (2013). Telephone follow-up was more expensive but more efficient than postal in a national stroke registry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8), 896–902.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Wijndaele, K., Matton, L., Duvigneaud, N., Lefevre, J., Duquet, W., Thomis, M., et al. (2007). Reliability, equivalence and respondent preference of computerized versus paper-and-pencil mental health questionnaires. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1958–1970.CrossRef
20.
Rodriguez, H. P., von Glahn, T., Rogers, W. H., Chang, H., Fanjiang, G., & Safran, D. G. (2006). Evaluating patients’ experiences with individual physicians: A randomized trial of mail, internet, and interactive voice response telephone administration of surveys. Medical Care, 44(2), 167–174.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zuidgeest, M., Hendriks, M., Koopman, L., Spreeuwenberg, P., & Rademakers, J. (2011). A comparison of a postal survey and mixed-mode survey using a questionnaire on patients’ experiences with breast care. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(3), e68.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
22.
Rutherford, C., Nixon, J., Brown, J. M., Lamping, D. L., & Cano, S. J. (2014). Using mixed methods to select optimal mode of administration for a patient-reported outcome instrument for people with pressure ulcers. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(22), 1471–2288.
23.
Shea, J. A., Guerra, C. E., Weiner, J., Aguirre, A. C., Ravenell, K. L., & Asch, D. A. (2008). Adapting a patient satisfaction instrument for low literate and Spanish-speaking populations: Comparison of three formats. Patient Education and Counseling, 73(1), 132–140.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Shih, T., & Fan, X. (2007). Response rates and mode preferences in web-mail mixed-mode surveys: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Internet Science, 2, 59–82.
25.
Ashley, L., Keding, A., Brown, J., Velikova, G., & Wright, P. (2013). Score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21): A randomised crossover trial in cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 22(6), 1435–1440.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Austin, J., Alvero, A. M., Fuchs, M. M., Patterson, L., & Anger, W. K. (2009). Pre-training to improve workshop performance in supervisor skills: An exploratory study of Latino agricultural workers. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 15(3), 273–281.CrossRefPubMed
27.
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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
28.
Caute, A., Northcott, S., Clarkson, L., Pring, T., & Hilari, K. (2012). Does mode of administration affect health-related quality-of-life outcomes after stroke? International Journal of Speechlanguage Pathology, 14(4), 329–337.CrossRef
29.
30.
Chang, Y. J., Chang, C. H., Peng, C. L., Wu, H. C., Lin, H. C., Wang, J. Y., et al. (2014). Measurement equivalence and feasibility of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: Paper-and-pencil versus touch-screen administration. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 23. doi:10.​1186/​1477-7525-12-23.CrossRef
31.
Cheung, Y. B., Goh, C., Thumboo, J., Khoo, K. S., & Wee, J. (2006). Quality of life scores differed according to mode of administration in a review of three major oncology questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(2), 185–191.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Clayton, J. A., Eydelman, M., Vitale, S., Manukyan, Z., Kramm, R., Datiles, M., et al. (2013). Web-based versus paper administration of common ophthalmic questionnaires: Comparison of subscale scores. Ophthalmology, 120(10), 2151–2159.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Coles, M. M., Cook, L. M., & Blake, T. R. (2007). Assessing obsessive compulsive symptoms and cognitions on the internet: Evidence for the comparability of paper and Internet administration. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(9), 2232–2240.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Collins, F. E., & Jones, K. V. (2004). Investigating dissociation online: Validation of a web-based version of the dissociative experiences scale. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 5(1), 133–147.CrossRef
35.
Cook, A. J., Roberts, D. A., Henderson, M. D., Van Winkle, L. C., Chastain, D. C., & Hamill-Ruth, R. J. (2004). Electronic pain questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain, 110(1–2), 310–317.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Greene, J., Speizer, H., & Wiitala, W. (2008). Telephone and web: Mixed-mode challenge. Health Services Research, 43(1 Pt 1), 230–248.PubMedCentralPubMed
37.
Grieve, R., & de Groot, H. T. (2011). Does online psychological test administration facilitate faking? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2386–2391.CrossRef
38.
39.
Handa, V. L., Barber, M. D., Young, S. B., Aronson, M. P., Morse, A., & Cundiff, G. W. (2008). Paper versus web-based administration of the pelvic floor distress inventory 20 and pelvic floor impact questionnaire 7. International Urogynecology Journal, 19(10), 1331–1335.CrossRef
40.
Hauer, K., Yardley, L., Beyer, N., Kempen, G., Dias, N., Campbell, M., et al. (2010). Validation of the falls efficacy scale and falls efficacy scale international in geriatric patients with and without cognitive impairment: results of self-report and interview-based questionnaires. Gerontology, 56(2), 190–199.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Hayes, J., & Grieve, R. (2013). Faked depression: Comparing malingering via the internet, pen-and-paper, and telephone administration modes. Telemedicine and e Health, 19(9), 714–716.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Hedman, E., Ljotsson, B., Ruck, C., Furmark, T., Carlbring, P., Lindefors, N., & Andersson, G. (2010). Internet administration of self-report measures commonly used in research on social anxiety disorder: A psychometric evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 736–740.CrossRef
43.
Hedman, E., Ljotsson, B., Blom, K., Alaoui, S. E., Kraepelien, M., Ruck, C., et al. (2013). Telephone versus internet administration of self-report measures of social anxiety, depressive symptoms, and insomnia: Psychometric evaluation of a method to reduce the impact of missing data. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(10), 131–138.CrossRef
44.
Hollandare, F., Andersson, G., & Engstrom, I. (2010). A comparison of psychometric properties between internet and paper versions of two depression instruments (BDI-II and MADRS-S) administered to clinic patients. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12(5), e49.
45.
Kobak, K. A. (2004). A comparison of face-to-face and videoconference administration of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 10(4), 231–235.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Kobak, K. A., Williams, J. B. W., Jeglic, E., Salvucci, D., & Sharp, I. R. (2008). Face-to-face versus remote administration of the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale using videoconference and telephone. Depression and Anxiety, 25(11), 913–919.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Lall, R., Mistry, D., Bridle, C., & Lamb, S. E. (2012). Telephone interviews can be used to collect follow-up data subsequent to no response to postal questionnaires in clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(1), 90–99.CrossRefPubMed
48.
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
49.
Lungenhausen, M., Lange, S., Maier, C., Schaub, C., Trampisch, H. J., & Endres. H. G. (2007). 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 Medical Research Methodology, 7(50). doi:10.​1186/​1471-2288-7-50.PubMedCentralPubMed
50.
Marceau, L. D., Link, C., Jamison, R. N., & Carolan, S. (2007). Electronic diaries as a tool to improve pain management: Is there any evidence? Pain Medicine, 8(Suppl 3), S101–S109.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Matthew, A. G., Currie, K. L., Irvine, J., Ritvo, P., Santa Mina, D., Jamnicky, L., et al. (2007). 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, 5, 38.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
52.
Naus, M. J., Philipp, L. M., & Samsi, M. (2009). From paper to pixels: A comparison of paper and computer formats in psychological assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 1–7.CrossRef
53.
Pinnock, H., Juniper, E. F., & Sheikh, A. (2005). Concordance between supervised and postal administration of the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniAQLQ) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) was very high. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(8), 809–814.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Ramachandran, S., Lundy, J. J., & Coons, S. J. (2008). Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and touch-screen versions of the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS). Quality of Life Research, 17(8), 1117–1120.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Reissmann, D. R., John, M. T., & Schierz, O. (2011). Influence of administration method on oral health-related quality of life assessment using the Oral Health Impact Profile. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 119(1), 73–78.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Richter, J. G., Becker, A., Koch, T., Nixdorf, M., Willers, R., Monser, R., et al. (2008). Self-assessments of patients via Tablet PC in routine patient care: Comparison with standardised paper questionnaires. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 67(12), 1739–1741.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Ritter, P., Lorig, K., Laurent, D., & Matthews, K. (2004). Internet versus mailed questionnaires: A randomized comparison. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(3), e29.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
58.
Salaffi, F., Gasparini, S., & Grassi, W. (2009). The use of computer touch-screen technology for the collection of patient-reported outcome data in rheumatoid arthritis: Comparison with standardized paper questionnaires. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 27(3), 459–468.PubMed
59.
Salaffi, F., Gasparini, S., Ciapetti, A., Gutierrez, M., & Grassi, W. (2013). Usability of an innovative and interactive electronic system for collection of patient-reported data in axial spondyloarthritis: Comparison with the traditional paper-administered format. Rheumatology, 52(11), 2062–2070.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Sikorski, A., Given, C. W., Given, B., Jeon, S., & You, M. (2009). Differential symptom reporting by mode of administration of the assessment: Automated voice response system versus a live telephone interview. Medical Care, 47(8), 866–874.CrossRef
61.
Sousa, P. C., Mendes, F. M., Imparato, J. C., & Ardenghi, T. M. (2009). Differences in responses to the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP14) used as a questionnaire or in an interview. Pesquisa Odontologica Brasileira—Brazilian Oral Research, 23(4), 358–364.
62.
Suris, A., Borman, P. D., Lind, L., & Kashner, T. M. (2007). Aggression, impulsivity, and health functioning in a veteran population: Equivalency and test-retest reliability of computerized and paper-and-pencil administrations. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 97–110.CrossRef
63.
Swartz, R. J., de Moor, C., Cook, K. F., Fouladi, R. T., Basen-Engquist, K., Eng, C., & Taylor, C. L. C. (2007). Mode effects in the center for epidemiologic studies depression (CES-D) scale: Personal digital assistant vs. paper and pencil administration. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 803–813.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Tiplady, B., Goodman, K., Cummings, G., Lyle, D., Carrington, R., Battersby, C., & Ralston, S. H. (2010). Patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: Assessing the equivalence of electronic and paper data collection. The Patient: Patient Centered Outcomes Research, 3(3), 133–143.CrossRef
65.
Weiler, K., Christ, A. M., Woodworth, G. G., Weiler, R. L., & Weiler, J. M. (2004). Quality of patient-reported outcome data captured using paper and interactive voice response diaries in an allergic rhinitis study: Is electronic data capture really better? Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 92(3), 335–339.CrossRef
66.
Whitehead, L. (2011). Methodological issues in Internet-mediated research: A randomized comparison of internet versus mailed questionnaires. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e109.
67.
Wu, L. T., Pan, J. J., Blazer, D. G., Tai, B., Brooner, R. K., Stitzer, M. L., et al. (2009). The construct and measurement equivalence of cocaine and opioid dependences: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103(3), 114–123.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
68.
Yu, S. C., & Yu, M. N. (2007). Comparison of Internet-based and paper-based questionnaires in Taiwan using multisample invariance approach. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 501–507.CrossRef
69.
Zimmerman, M., & Martinez, J. H. (2012). Web-based assessment of depression in patients treated in clinical practice: Reliability, validity, and patient acceptance. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 73(3), 333–338.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis
verfasst von
Claudia Rutherford
Daniel Costa
Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber
Holly Rice
Liam Gabb
Madeleine King
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2016
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1110-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Quality of Life Research 3/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Special Section: PROs in Non-Standard Settings (by invitation only)

AmbuFlex: tele-patient-reported outcomes (telePRO) as the basis for follow-up in chronic and malignant diseases

OriginalPaper

Stability of the 13-item sense of coherence (SOC) scale: a longitudinal prospective study in women treated for breast cancer

OriginalPaper

QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30

Special Section: PROs in Non-Standard Settings (by invitation only)

Implementation of the Kids-CAT in clinical settings: a newly developed computer-adaptive test to facilitate the assessment of patient-reported outcomes of children and adolescents in clinical practice in Germany

OriginalPaper

Dimensionality of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: an exploratory bi-factor analytic study

OriginalPaper

Ambulatory and diary methods can facilitate the measurement of patient-reported outcomes