Graduate School of Health Sciences, Gunma University, Maebashi 371-8514, Japan.
Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Gunma University, Maebashi 371-8514, Japan.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 8;20(6):4773. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20064773.
The use of electronic patient-reported outcomes has increased recently, and smartphones offer distinct advantages over other devices. However, previous systematic reviews have not investigated the reliability of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), and Kessler Screening Scale for Psychological Distress (K6) when used with smartphones, and this has not been fully explored. This study aimed to evaluate the equivalence of the paper and smartphone versions of the CES-D, GAD-7, and K6, which were compared following a randomized crossover design method in 100 adults in Gunma, Japan. Participants responded to the paper and smartphone versions at 1-week intervals. The equivalence of paper and smartphone versions was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The mean participant age was 19.86 years (SD = 1.08, 23% male). The ICC for the paper and smartphone versions of the CES-D, GAD-7, and K6 were 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.83), 0.68 (95% CI 0.59-0.77), and 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.88), respectively. Thus, the CES-D and K6 scales are appropriate for use in a smartphone version, which could be applied to clinical and research settings in which the paper or smartphone versions could be used as needed.
最近，电子患者报告结局的使用有所增加，智能手机相对于其他设备具有明显优势。然而，之前的系统评价并未调查在使用智能手机时，流行病学研究中心抑郁量表（CES-D）、广泛性焦虑症 7 项量表（GAD-7）和 Kessler 心理困扰筛查量表（K6）的可靠性，这一点尚未得到充分探讨。本研究旨在评估 CES-D、GAD-7 和 K6 的纸质版和智能手机版的等效性，在日本群马县的 100 名成年人中采用随机交叉设计方法，比较了这两种版本。参与者在 1 周的间隔内分别回答纸质版和智能手机版的问题。使用组内相关系数（ICC）评估纸质版和智能手机版的等效性。参与者的平均年龄为 19.86 岁（SD=1.08，23%为男性）。CES-D、GAD-7 和 K6 的纸质版和智能手机版的 ICC 分别为 0.76（95%置信区间[CI]0.66-0.83）、0.68（95% CI 0.59-0.77）和 0.83（95% CI 0.75-0.88）。因此，CES-D 和 K6 量表适用于智能手机版，可以应用于临床和研究环境，根据需要可以使用纸质版或智能手机版。
