Assessing Patient Reported Outcomes Measures via Phone Interviews Versus Patient Self-Survey in the Clinic: Are We Measuring the Same Thing?

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Owoicho Adogwa¹ ; ^{owoicho.adogwa@gmail.com" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Aladine A. Elsamadicy¹ ; Joseph Cheng² ; Carlos Bagley³
• 关键词：Clinic surveys ; FTE-dependent ; Non-FTE dependent ; Oswestry Disability Index ; Patient-reported outcomes ; Phone interviews ; PROs ; Visual analog score
• 刊名：World Neurosurgery
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：March 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：87
• 期：Complete
• 页码：230-234
• 全文大小：1093 K

文摘

Longitudinally following patients requires a full-time employee (FTE)-dependent data inflow infrastructure. There are efforts to capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by the use of non–FTE-dependent methodologies. In this study, we set out to assess the reliability of PRO data captured via FTE-dependent compared with non–FTE-dependent methodologies.

Methods

A total of 119 adult patients (65 men) who underwent 1-and 2-level lumbar fusions at Duke University Medical Center were enrolled in this prospective study. Enrollment criteria included available demographic, clinical, and PRO data. All patients completed 2 sets of questionnaires—the first a phone interviews and the second a self-survey. There was at least a 2-week period between the phone interviews and self-survey. Questionnaires included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the visual analog scale for back pain (VAS-BP), and the visual analog scale for leg pain (VAS-LP). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare the reliability of baseline PRO data captured.

Results

A total of 39.49% of patients were smokers, 21.00% had diabetes, and 11.76% had coronary artery disease; 26.89% reported history of anxiety disorder, and 28.57% reported history of depression. A total of 97.47% of patients had a high-school diploma or General Education Development, and 49.57% attained a 4-year college degree or postgraduate degree. We observed a high correlation between baseline PRO data captured between FTE-dependent versus non–FTE dependent methodologies (ODI: r = −0.89, VAS-BP: r = 0.74, VAS-LP: r = 0.70). There was no difference in PROs of baseline pain and functional disability between FTE-dependent and non–FTE-dependent methodologies: baseline ODI (FTE-dependent: 47.73 ± 16.77 [mean ± SD] vs. non–FTE-dependent: 45.81 ± 12.11, P = 0.39), VAS-LP (FTE-dependent: 6.13 ± 2.78 vs. non–FTE-dependent: 6.46 ± 2.79, P = 0.36) and VAS-BP (FTE-dependent: 6.33 ± 2.90 vs. non–FTE-dependent: 6.53 ± 2.48, P = 0.57).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that there is great reliability between PRO data captured between FTE-dependent and non–FTE-dependent methodologies.