Electronic Versus Paper-Based Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life Specific to HIV Disease: Reliability Study of the PROQOL-HIV Questionnaire

Background Electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) provide quick and usually reliable assessments of patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQL). Objective An electronic version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Quality of Life-human immunodeficiency virus (PROQOL-HIV) questionnaire was developed, and its face validity and reliability were assessed using standard psychometric methods. Methods A sample of 80 French outpatients (66% male, 52/79; mean age 46.7 years, SD 10.9) were recruited. Paper-based and electronic questionnaires were completed in a randomized crossover design (2-7 day interval). Biomedical data were collected. Questionnaire version and order effects were tested on full-scale scores in a 2-way ANOVA with patients as random effects. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, with 95% confidence interval) for each dimension. Usability testing was carried out from patients’ survey reports, specifically, general satisfaction, ease of completion, quality and clarity of user interface, and motivation to participate in follow-up PROQOL-HIV electronic assessments. Results Questionnaire version and administration order effects (N=59 complete cases) were not significant at the 5% level, and no interaction was found between these 2 factors (P=.94). Reliability indexes were acceptable, with Pearson correlations greater than .7 and ICCs ranging from .708 to .939; scores were not statistically different between the two versions. A total of 63 (79%) complete patients’ survey reports were available, and 55% of patients (30/55) reported being satisfied and interested in electronic assessment of their HRQL in clinical follow-up. Individual ratings of PROQOL-HIV user interface (85%-100% of positive responses) confirmed user interface clarity and usability. Conclusions The electronic PROQOL-HIV introduces minor modifications to the original paper-based version, following International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) ePRO Task Force guidelines, and shows good reliability and face validity. Patients can complete the computerized PROQOL-HIV questionnaire and the scores from the paper or electronic versions share comparable accuracy and interpretation.

[1]  S. Himelhoch,et al.  Acceptability of Mobile Phone Technology for Medication Adherence Interventions among HIV-Positive Patients at an Urban Clinic , 2013, AIDS research and treatment.

[2]  O. Chassany,et al.  Psychometric Validation of the PROQOL-HIV Questionnaire, a New Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument–Specific to HIV Disease , 2012, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[3]  Baiba Berzins,et al.  The Development of PROQOL-HIV: An International Instrument to Assess the Health-Related Quality of Life of Persons Living With HIV/AIDS , 2012, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[4]  P. Deshpande,et al.  Patient-reported outcomes: A new era in clinical research , 2011, Perspectives in clinical research.

[5]  Bill Byrom,et al.  ePro: Electronic Solutions for Patient-Reported Data , 2010 .

[6]  Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus,et al.  Innovation in sexually transmitted disease and HIV prevention: internet and mobile phone delivery vehicles for global diffusion. , 2010, Current opinion in psychiatry.

[7]  E. Juniper,et al.  Patients may respond differently to paper and electronic versions of the same questionnaires. , 2009, Respiratory medicine.

[8]  David Cella,et al.  Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[9]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health measurement scales , 2008 .

[10]  S. Shiffman,et al.  Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. , 2008, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[11]  S. Shiffman,et al.  Patient non-compliance with paper diaries , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  P. C. Tang,et al.  Research Paper: Use of Computer-based Records, Completeness of Documentation, and Appropriateness of Documented Clinical Decisions , 1999, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[13]  D. Osoba,et al.  Missing quality of life data in cancer clinical trials: serious problems and challenges. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  S. Reiser,et al.  The clinical record in medicine. Part 1: Learning from cases. , 1991, Annals of internal medicine.

[15]  Ralf Dresner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales A Practical Guide To Their Development And Use , 2016 .

[16]  L. Kux OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration , 2014 .

[17]  R. Hays,et al.  Health and Quality of Life Outcomes , 2006 .