Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes (Feb 2021)

Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study

  • Saeid Shahraz,
  • Tan P. Pham,
  • Marc Gibson,
  • Marie De La Cruz,
  • Munther Baara,
  • Sachin Karnik,
  • Christopher Dell,
  • Sheryl Pease,
  • Suyash Nigam,
  • Joseph C. Cappelleri,
  • Craig Lipset,
  • Patrick Zornow,
  • Jeff Lee,
  • Bill Byrom

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00296-z
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 5, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Scrolling is a perceived barrier in the use of bring your own device (BYOD) to capture electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs). This study explored the impact of scrolling on the measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in the presence and absence of scrolling. Methods Adult participants with a chronic condition involving daily pain completed ePROMs on four devices with different scrolling properties: a large provisioned device not requiring scrolling; two provisioned devices requiring scrolling – one with a “smart-scrolling” feature that disabled the “next” button until all information was viewed, and a second without this feature; and BYOD with smart-scrolling. The ePROMs included were the SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, and three pain measures: a visual analogue scale, a numeric response scale and a Likert scale. Participants completed English or Spanish versions according to their first language. Associations between ePROM scores were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), with lower bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) > 0.7 indicating comparability. Results One hundred fifteen English- or Spanish-speaking participants (21-75y) completed all four administrations. High associations between scrolling and non-scrolling were observed (ICCs: 0.71–0.96). The equivalence threshold was met for all but one SF-12 domain score (bodily pain; lower 95% CI: 0.65) and two EQ-5D-5L item scores (pain/discomfort, usual activities; lower 95% CI: 0.64/0.67). Age, language, and device size produced insignificant differences in scores. Conclusions The measurement properties of PROMs are preserved even in the presence of scrolling on a handheld device. Further studies that assess scrolling impact over long-term, repeated use are recommended.

Keywords