Article Text

AB1049 Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes in RA: A Comparison between an Innovative and Interactive Touch-Screen Computer-Based System and the Traditional, Paper-Administered Format in the Multicentre, Observational Action Study
  1. F. Salaffi1,
  2. A. Ciapetti1,
  3. S. Gasparini1,
  4. M. Galeazzi2,
  5. M. Le Bars3,
  6. A. Bellatreccia4
  1. 1Polytechnic University of Marche, Jesi-Ancona
  2. 2University of Siena, Siena, Italy
  3. 3Bristol-Myers Squibb, Rueil-Malmaison, France
  4. 4Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roma, Italy


Background Computer-assisted administration of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, particularly via touch-screen technology, enables data to be collected, scored and reported in real time, with the potential for improving physician–patient communication and saving time on administration. RHEUMATISM (RHEUMA Touch-screen Italian SysteM) is a multimedia, touch-screen program developed for use by patients with RA with varying levels of functional and computer literacy; the acceptability, feasibility, reliability and score agreement of collecting PRO data versus conventional paper administration have been demonstrated in a single-centre study.1 In order to confirm these results in a multicentre, longitudinal setting, PRO questionnaires were administered using paper and touch-screen technology in a subgroup of Italian patients enrolled in the ACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice) study.

Objectives To compare the agreement between computer touch-screen versus conventional, paper-format questionnaires for the collection of PRO data in a subgroup of patients from the ACTION study.

Methods ACTION is a 2-year, non-interventional, prospective, multicentre, international cohort study of IV abatacept in the treatment of RA in clinical practice. PROs, namely Recent-Onset Arthritis Disability (ROAD) and PRO-CLinical ARthritis Activity (PRO-CLARA), were collected via paper as well as via RHEUMATISM, 1 hour apart, in two different visits 6 months apart. The following analyses were performed: descriptive analysis of baseline characteristics in the subgroup of patients; agreement between scores of the touch-screen method and the paper method using Student's t-test for paired samples and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) with 95% CI; comparison of the agreement between scores of the touch-screen method and the paper method at the two different visits.

Results A total of 52 patients had data available for the analysis. When comparing PRO measures obtained through the two data collection methods, a high agreement was shown, which confirms the results of the previous study.1 In particular, ICC (95% CI) was 0.9842 (0.9766, 0.9893) for ROAD scores and 0.9727 (0.9595, 0.9816) for PRO-CLARA scores. No differences were observed in the results obtained at the two different visits, 6 months apart.

Conclusions In the multicentre, real-world setting of the ACTION study, the present evaluation confirmed a high agreement between PRO collection via RHEUMATISM and via paper. Combined with previous findings, these results show that RHEUMATISM represents a valuable tool for supporting a tight control approach in the management of RA.


  1. Salaffi F, et al. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2009;27:459–68.

Disclosure of Interest F. Salaffi: None declared, A. Ciapetti: None declared, S. Gasparini: None declared, M. Galeazzi: None declared, M. Le Bars Shareholder of: BMS, Employee of: BMS, A. Bellatreccia Employee of: BMS

DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.1548

Statistics from

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.