National resource center for rehabilitation in rheumatology - NKRR, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, PO Box 23, Vinderen, 0319 Oslo, Norway.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Apr 16;14:52. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-52.
Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases have expressed a need for more frequent measurement of relevant outcomes, due to the variations in their symptoms during the day and from day to day. At present, patient-reported outcomes are extensively collected with questionnaires completed with pen and paper. However, as a measurement tool in frequent data collection the questionnaires are impractical. In contrast, text messages on mobile phones are suitable for frequent data collection. The aim of this study was two-fold; to compare daily registrations of patient-reported outcomes assessed with text-messages on mobile phones (SMS) or with questionnaires completed with pen and paper (P&P), with regard to scores and variation of scores, and to examine feasibility of the SMS method in a multicentre clinical study.
To compare scores, 21 patients with an inflammatory, rheumatic disease performed daily assessments of pain, fatigue, stiffness and ability to carry out daily activities on a numeric rating scale (NRS). The patients were asked to assess the variables every other day with the SMS method and every other day with the P&P method for 28 consecutive days. In total each participant had to answer 14 P&P forms and 14 SMS messages. Mean scores and variation, expressed as the pooled standard deviation or as the average range between the maximum and minimum scores for the two methods, were compared using paired sample t-tests or Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. To examine feasibility, 36 patients with an inflammatory, rheumatic disease assessed the same four variables with SMS twice a week for 35 weeks. Feasibility of the SMS method was expressed as mean response-rate (%) in the total group and per centre.
Mean scores, standard deviation of mean scores and mean range scores did not differ significantly between the two methods (p > 0.05). Response-rate with the SMS method was 97.9% for the whole group and for the three centres 97.1%, 98.3% and 98.4%, respectively.
Outcomes assessed on numeric rating scales and reported with text-messages on mobile phones or with questionnaires completed with pen and paper provide comparable scores. Further, the SMS method provided high response rates (> 97%) in a multicentre setting. Our results encourage the use of text messages on mobile phones in studies requiring frequent data collection and real-time assessment, as in fluctuating diseases such inflammatory, rheumatic diseases.
由于患者的症状在一天内和每天之间存在变化,患有炎症性风湿性疾病的患者表示需要更频繁地测量相关结果。目前,广泛使用纸笔完成的问卷来收集患者报告的结果。然而,作为频繁数据收集的测量工具,问卷并不实用。相比之下,手机短信非常适合频繁的数据收集。本研究的目的有两个:一是比较使用手机短信(SMS)或纸笔问卷(P&P)进行的患者报告结局的日常记录,比较得分和得分变化,二是在多中心临床研究中检查 SMS 方法的可行性。
为了比较得分,21 名患有炎症性风湿性疾病的患者使用数字评定量表(NRS)对疼痛、疲劳、僵硬和日常活动能力进行每日评估。要求患者每隔一天使用 SMS 方法和 P&P 方法评估变量,共 28 天。每位参与者总共需要回答 14 份 P&P 表格和 14 条 SMS 消息。使用配对样本 t 检验或 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验比较两种方法的平均得分和变化,分别表示为两种方法的 pooled 标准差或最大和最小得分之间的平均范围。为了检查可行性,36 名患有炎症性风湿性疾病的患者每两周使用 SMS 评估相同的四个变量,共 35 周。SMS 方法的可行性表示为总组和每个中心的平均应答率(%)。
两种方法的平均得分、平均得分的标准差和平均得分范围均无显著差异(p > 0.05)。SMS 方法的总应答率为 97.9%,三个中心分别为 97.1%、98.3%和 98.4%。
使用数字评定量表评估并通过手机短信或纸笔问卷报告的结局提供可比的得分。此外,SMS 方法在多中心环境中提供了>97%的高应答率。我们的结果鼓励在需要频繁数据收集和实时评估的研究中使用手机短信,例如在炎症性风湿性等波动性疾病中。