Gibbs David, Toop Nathaniel, Grossbach Andrew J, Keister Alexander, Mallory Noah, Hatef Benjamin, Weinberg Joshua, Viljoen Stephanus, Xu David
The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Department of Neurological Surgery, Columbus, OH, USA.
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2023 Mar;226:107618. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2023.107618. Epub 2023 Feb 9.
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are key tools used to inform clinical research and patient-centered care. Application of data collected from PROMs, however, may be limited by incomplete responses, and little is known regarding the efficacy of varied PROM delivery methods. The objective of this study was to compare PROMs compliance when delivered via paper and electronic formats.
Elective adult spinal deformity patients were screened for inclusion. Data collected included demographics, type of surgery, PROMs compliance, and discharge care. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis (MVA) were performed to compare pre- and postoperative compliance rates.
Of the 474 included patients, 177 were administered paper PROMs, while 297 were electronic. Preoperatively, 101 patients (57.1%) had any portion of their paper PROMs available; 179 (60.3%) had any of their electronic PROMs available (p = 0.492). Among all patients, 76 (42.9%) and 170 (57.2%) had all of their completed preop PROMs available (p = 0.003). Among patients with any of their preop PROMs completed, 75.2% with paper and 95.0% with electronic were completed in their entirety (p < 0.001). Similar trends were observed among postoperative PROMs. MVA demonstrated electronic delivery as the only significant correlate with pre- and post-operative PROMs compliance (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively).
No differences were observed across modalities when considering any available PROMs, yet electronic PROM delivery was associated with higher completion of PROMs. In order to improve the quality of patient-reported data, electronic delivery with alternative methods of quality improvement may be considered to increase PROMs retention rates.
患者报告结局指标（PROMs）是用于指导临床研究和以患者为中心的医疗的关键工具。然而，从PROMs收集的数据应用可能会受到回答不完整的限制，并且对于不同PROMs交付方式的效果知之甚少。本研究的目的是比较通过纸质和电子形式交付PROMs时的依从性。
对择期成年脊柱畸形患者进行纳入筛查。收集的数据包括人口统计学、手术类型、PROMs依从性和出院护理。进行描述性统计和多变量分析（MVA）以比较术前和术后的依从率。
在纳入的474例患者中，177例接受纸质PROMs，297例接受电子PROMs。术前，101例患者（57.1%）有部分纸质PROMs可用；179例（60.3%）有部分电子PROMs可用（p = 0.492）。在所有患者中，76例（42.9%）和170例（57.2%）有全部完成的术前PROMs可用（p = 0.003）。在完成任何术前PROMs的患者中，75.2%的纸质PROMs和95.0%的电子PROMs全部完成（p < 0.001）。术后PROMs也观察到类似趋势。MVA显示电子交付是术前和术后PROMs依从性的唯一显著相关因素（分别为p < 0.001和p = 0.003）。
在考虑任何可用的PROMs时，各方式之间未观察到差异，但电子PROM交付与更高的PROMs完成率相关。为了提高患者报告数据的质量，可以考虑采用电子交付并结合其他质量改进方法来提高PROMs保留率。
