The reliability of patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain when answered in online, telephone, and face-to-face interview format

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are unique indicators of disease and treatment impact on patients that help in the selection of the correct interventions for their treatment. The aim of our study was to investigate the reliability of PROs that are frequently used in patients with chronic low back pain in face-to-face interview, online, and telephone formats. Methods: The participants were randomized into groups until there were at least 120 participants each in the face-to-face interview, online, and telephone groups. All participants completed the Oswestry Disability Index, the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire according to the format characteristics of their group. Results: Among the 364 patients, in the online group (n=120) the completion time for all three questionnaires was significantly shorter than that in the face-to-face interview (n=121) (ODI: p=0.002, RMDQ: p=0.003 and FreBAQ: p=0.032) and telephone (n=123) (ODI: p=0.007, RMDQ: p=0.001 and FreBAQ: p=0.024) groups. When the test–retest reliability was examined, the ODI (ICC: 0.86), RMDQ (ICC: 0.93), and FreBAQ (ICC: 0.81) showed an excellent correlation in the face-to-face interview group. In the telephone group, the ODI, RMDQ, and FreBAQ showed good correlations. In the online group, there was a good correlation in the RMDQ (ICC: 0.74) and FreBAQ (ICC: 0.65), while there was a moderate correlation in the ODI (ICC: 0.59). Conclusion: Although the ODI, RMDQ, and FreBAQ for chronic low back pain patients had lower reliability correlations in both the online and telephone versions compared to the face-to-face interview, mostly they had adequate reliability. Moreover, the online version was a more useful and quicker evaluation method than the telephone version. However, we do not recommend using the online version of the ODI due to its lower reliability.

Keywords

• patient-reported outcomes
• low back pain
• telerehabilitation
• online
• telehealth

References

1. 1. Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL, et al. Patient-reported outcomes: a new era in clinical research. Perspectives in clinical research. 2011;2(4):137-44.
2. 2. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, et at. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(14): 1-74
3. 3. Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, et al. Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient‐Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health. 2003;6(5):522-31.
4. 4. Meirte J, Hellemans N, Anthonissen M, et al. Benefits and disadvantages of electronic patient-reported outcome measures: systematic review. JMIR Perioperative Medicine. 2020;3(1):e15588.
5. 5. Engan HK, Hilmarsen C, Sittlinger S, et al. Are web-based questionnaires accepted in patients attending rehabilitation? Disability and rehabilitation. 2016;38(24):2406-12.
6. 6. Andikyan V, Rezk Y, Einstein MH, et al. A prospective study of the feasibility and acceptability of a Web-based, electronic patient-reported outcome system in assessing patient recovery after major gynecologic cancer surgery. Gynecologic oncology. 2012;127(2):273-7.
7. 7. Schnall R, Wantland D, Velez O, et al. Feasibility testing of a web-based symptom self-management system for persons living with HIV. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care. 2014;25(4):364-71.
8. 8. Smith MJ, Reiter MJ, Crist BD, et al. Improving patient satisfaction through computer-based questionnaires. Orthopedics. 2016;39(1):e31-e5.

9. 9. McCleary NJ, Wigler D, Berry D, et al. Feasibility of computer-based self-administered cancer-specific geriatric assessment in older patients with gastrointestinal malignancy. The oncologist. 2013;18(1):64.
10. 10. Hartkopf AD, Graf J, Simoes E, et al. Electronic-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes: Willingness, Needs, and Barriers in Adjuvant and Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients. JMIR Cancer. 2017 Aug 7;3(2):e11.
11. 11. Riis A, Rathleff MS, Hartvigsen J, et al. Feasibility study on recruitment in general practice for a low back pain online information study (part of the ADVIN Back Trial). BMC research notes. 2020;13(1):1-4.
12. 12. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine. 2000;25(22):2940-53.
13. 13. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland–Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine. 2000;25(24):3115-24.
14. 14. Wand BM, Catley MJ, Rabey MI, et al. Disrupted self-perception in people with chronic low back pain. Further evaluation of the Fremantle Back Awareness Questionnaire. The Journal of Pain. 2016;17(9):1001-12.
15. 15. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2007;60(1):34-42.
16. 16. Hutchings A, Neuburger J, Frie KG, et al. Factors associated with non-response in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2012;10(1):1-8.
17. 17. Imam MA, Barke S, Stafford GH, et al. Loss to follow-up after total hip replacement: a source of bias in patient reported outcome measures and registry datasets? Hip International. 2014;24(5):465-72.
18. 18. Solberg TK, Sørlie A, Sjaavik K, et al. Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine? A study of responding and non-responding cohort participants from a clinical spine surgery registry. Acta orthopaedica. 2011;82(1):56-63.
19. 19. Perlis RH, Haneuse SJ, Rubenfeld GD, et al. Reporting Clinical Studies Affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic: Guidelines for Authors. JAMA network open. 2021;4(1):e2036155-e.
20. 20. Gupte G, Peters CM, Buchowski JM, et al. Reliability of the Neck Disability Index and Japanese Orthopedic Association questionnaires in adult cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy patients when administered by telephone or via online format. The Spine Journal. 2019;19(7):1154-61.
21. 21. Brouwer S, Kuijer W, Dijkstra PU, et al. Reliability and stability of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire: intra class correlation and limits of agreement. Disability and rehabilitation. 2004;26(3):162-5.
22. 22. Grönblad M, Hupli M, Wennerstrand P, et al. Intercorrelation and test-retest reliability of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients. The Clinical journal of pain. 1993;9(3):189-95.
23. 23. Monticone M, Sconza C, Portoghese I, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Fremantle Knee Awareness Questionnaire in Italian subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2021;19(1):1-10.
24. 24. Mazar I, Lamoureux R, Ojo O, et al. Telephone versus face-to-face interviews for patient-reported outcome instrument development. Value in Health. 2015;18(7):A718.
25. 25. Schwartzberg L. Electronic patient-reported outcomes: the time is ripe for integration into patient care and clinical research. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book. 2016;36:e89-e96