Research ArticleArticle

Patient-reported Outcome in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Comparison of Web-based Versus Paper-completed Questionnaires

HEATHER MacKENZIE, ARANE THAVANESWARAN, VINOD CHANDRAN and DAFNA D. GLADMAN
The Journal of Rheumatology December 2011, 38 (12) 2619-2624; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.110165

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Gladman DD,
    2. Farewell VT
    . Longitudinal cohort studies. J Rheumatol Suppl. 2005 Jan;72:30–2.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Denscombe M
    . Web-based questionnaires and the mode effect: An evaluation based on completion rates and data contents of near-identical questionnaires delivered in different modes. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2006;24:246–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Im E,
    2. Chee W,
    3. Bender M,
    4. Cheng C,
    5. Tsai H,
    6. Mi Kang N,
    7. et al.
    The psychometric properties of pen-and-pencil and internet versions of the Midlife Women’s Symptom Index (MSI). Int J Nursing Studies 2005;42:167–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Vereecken CA
    . Paper pencil versus PC administered querying of a study on health behaviour in school-aged children. Arch Pub Health 2001;59:43–61.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Vereecken CA,
    2. Maes L
    . Comparison of a computer-administered and paper-and-pencil-administered questionnaire on health and lifestyle behaviors. J Adoles Health 2006;38:426–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. van den Kerkhof EG,
    2. Goldstein DH,
    3. Blaine WC,
    4. Rimmer MJ
    . A comparison of paper with electronic patient-completed questionnaires in a preoperative clinic. Anesthes Analges 2005;101:1075–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hess R,
    2. Santucci A,
    3. McTigue K,
    4. Fischer G,
    5. Kapoor W
    . Patient difficulty using tablet computers to screen in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:476–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Pouwer F,
    2. Snoek FJ,
    3. van der Ploeg HM,
    4. Heine RJ,
    5. Brand AN
    . A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the Well-being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Qual Life Res 1997;7:33–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    1. Provenzano DA,
    2. Fanciullo GJ,
    3. Jamison RN,
    4. McHugo GJ,
    5. Baird JC
    . Computer assessment and diagnostic classification of chronic pain patients. Pain Med 2007;8:167–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Bates SC,
    2. Cox JM
    . The impact of computer versus paper-pencil survey, and individual versus group administration, on self-reports of sensitive behaviors. Comput Hum Behav 2008;24:903–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Beebe TJ,
    2. Harrison PA,
    3. McRae JA,
    4. Anderson RE,
    5. Fulkerson JA
    . An evaluation of computer-assisted self-interviews in a school setting. Pub Opin Quarterly 1998;62:623–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Cook AJ,
    2. Roberts DA,
    3. Henderson MD,
    4. Van Winkle LC,
    5. Chastain DC,
    6. Hamill-Ruth RJ
    . Electronic pain questionnaires: A randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain 2004;110:310–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Junker U,
    2. Freynhagen R,
    3. Langler K,
    4. Gockel U,
    5. Schmidt U,
    6. Tolle TR,
    7. et al.
    Paper versus electronic rating scales for pain assessment. Curr Med Res Opin 2008;24:1799–808.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Kypri K,
    2. Gallagher SJ,
    3. Cashell-Smith ML
    . An internet-based survey method for college student drinking research. Drug Alcohol Dependence 2004;76:45–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. McCoy S,
    2. Marks PV Jr.,
    3. Carr CL,
    4. Mbarika V
    . Electronic versus paper surveys: Analysis of potential psychometric biases. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Big Island, Hawaii, 2004;1–8.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Liefeld JP
    . Response effects in computer-administered questioning. J Mark Res 1988;25:405–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Bruce B,
    2. Fries JF
    . The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). J Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005;23 Suppl 39:S14–S18.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Ware JE Jr.
    . SF-36 health survey update. Spine;25:3130–9.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Garrett S,
    2. Jenkinson T,
    3. Kennedy LG,
    4. Whitelock H,
    5. Gaisford P,
    6. Calin A
    . A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index. J Rheumatol 1994;21:2286–91.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Calin A,
    2. Garrett S,
    3. Whitelock H,
    4. Kennedy LG,
    5. O’Hea J,
    6. Mallorie P,
    7. et al.
    A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: The development of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index. J Rheumatol 1994;21:2281–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Jones SD,
    2. Steiner A,
    3. Garrett SL,
    4. Calin A
    . The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Patient Global Score (BAS-G). Br J Rheumatol 1996;35:66–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Doward L,
    2. Spoorenberg A,
    3. Cook S,
    4. Whalley D,
    5. Helliwell P,
    6. Kay L,
    7. et al.
    Development of the ASQoL: A quality of life instrument specific to ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62:20–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Husted JA,
    2. Tom BD,
    3. Schentag CT,
    4. Farewell VT,
    5. Gladman DD
    . Occurrence and correlates of fatigue in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1553–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Finlay AY,
    2. Khan GK
    . Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI): A simple practical measure for routine clinical use. Clin Exp Dermatol 1994;19:210–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. EuroQoL Group
    . EQ-5D. Rotterdam: EuroQoL Group; 2008. [Internet. Accessed Sep 7, 2011.] Available from: http://www.euroqol.org/
  26. 26.↵
    1. Chandran V,
    2. Bhella S,
    3. Schentag C,
    4. Gladman DD
    . Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Fatigue Scale is valid in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:936–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Bischoff-Ferrari HA,
    2. Vondechend M,
    3. Bellamy N,
    4. Theiler R
    . Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch-screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:80–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Greenwood MC,
    2. Hakim AJ,
    3. Carson E,
    4. Doyle DV
    . Touch-screen computer systems in the rheumatology clinic offer a reliable and user-friendly means of collecting quality-of-life and outcome data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2006;45:66–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Richter JG,
    2. Becker A,
    3. Koch T,
    4. Nixdorf M,
    5. Willers R,
    6. Monser R,
    7. et al.
    Patients’ self-assessments via tablet PC in routine patient care: Comparison to standardized paper questionnaires. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:1739–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Ryan JM,
    2. Corry JR,
    3. Attewell R,
    4. Smithson MJ
    . A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 general health questionnaire to the standard paper version. Qual Life Res 2002;11:19–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Wilson AS,
    2. Kitas GD,
    3. Carruthers DM,
    4. Reay C,
    5. Skan J,
    6. Harris S,
    7. et al.
    Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: An initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36. Rheumatology 2002;41:268–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

 Request Permissions

Bookmark this article

Jump to section