Article Text

PDF
AB1070 SF-36: is There A Difference between Paper and Touch-Screen Evaluation?
  1. L. Cunha-Miranda1,
  2. C. Silva1,
  3. H. Santos1,
  4. F. Barcelos1,
  5. C. Miguel1,
  6. J. Borges1,
  7. S. Fernandes1,
  8. R. Trinca2,
  9. V. Vicente3,
  10. P. Aguiar4
  1. 1Rheumatology
  2. 2Nursing, Instituto Português De Reumatologia
  3. 3Eurotrials Scientific Consultants
  4. 4Eurotrials Scientific Consultants and Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

Abstract

Background Patient reported outcomes are a relevant aspect in the follow-up of our patients. The use of computer assisted platforms is being introduced rapidly in our daily clinical practice. We should be comfortable in using new technologies as long as they are validated and reflect the same outcome as older forms of patient reported outcomes.

Objectives To evaluate and validate an electronic based SF-36 questionnaire in a touch-screen platform

Methods Patients followed in our biologic clinic were evaluated with a paper version of SF-36 and after with the electronic version.

The touch-screen was specially developed for our patients, integrating software that recognized the patient by disease through a bar code and presented the questionnaires according to the disease.

Concordance between paper rand touch-screen questionnaire was done through Intraclass Correlation Coefficients. Internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. For categorical variables Cohen Kappa concordance coeficent was used.

Results A total of 120 patients were included 75.8% were female, mean age was 50.78±11.88 and mean disease duration was 11.43±9.02, 69.9% had less than the complete secondary school level.

14.2% had psoriatic arthritis, 30% ankylosing spondylitis, and 55.8% had rheumatoid arthritis.

The ICC: Intraclass correlation coefficients between touch-screen versus paper were respectively for the different dimensions of SF-36 Physical function – 0.928, Physical role – 0.870, Pain – 0.858, General health – 0.925, Vitality – 0.905, Social function – 0.899, Emotional role – 0.781, Mental health – 0.944, Cronbach's Alpha (8 domains) for touchscreen – 0.891 and for paper – 0.907.

Conclusions We found no relevant difference between paper and touch-screen version of the SF-36, with high correlation coefficients validating this platform. This is a useful instrument in our clinical practice, helping clinicians to have more data on their patient's with less time expended.

Disclosure of Interest None declared

DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-eular.5094

Statistics from Altmetric.com

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.