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.
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