Assessing Patient Reported Outcomes Measures via Phone Interviews Versus Patient Self-Survey in the Clinic: Are We Measuring the Same Thing?

Owoicho Adogwa, Aladine A. Elsamadicy, Joseph Cheng, Carlos Bagley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Longitudinally following patients requires a full-time employee (FTE)-dependent data inflow infrastructure. There are efforts to capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by the use of non-FTE-dependent methodologies. In this study, we set out to assess the reliability of PRO data captured via FTE-dependent compared with non-FTE-dependent methodologies. Methods A total of 119 adult patients (65 men) who underwent 1-and 2-level lumbar fusions at Duke University Medical Center were enrolled in this prospective study. Enrollment criteria included available demographic, clinical, and PRO data. All patients completed 2 sets of questionnaires - the first a phone interviews and the second a self-survey. There was at least a 2-week period between the phone interviews and self-survey. Questionnaires included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the visual analog scale for back pain (VAS-BP), and the visual analog scale for leg pain (VAS-LP). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare the reliability of baseline PRO data captured. Results A total of 39.49% of patients were smokers, 21.00% had diabetes, and 11.76% had coronary artery disease; 26.89% reported history of anxiety disorder, and 28.57% reported history of depression. A total of 97.47% of patients had a high-school diploma or General Education Development, and 49.57% attained a 4-year college degree or postgraduate degree. We observed a high correlation between baseline PRO data captured between FTE-dependent versus non-FTE dependent methodologies (ODI: r = -0.89, VAS-BP: r = 0.74, VAS-LP: r = 0.70). There was no difference in PROs of baseline pain and functional disability between FTE-dependent and non-FTE-dependent methodologies: baseline ODI (FTE-dependent: 47.73 ± 16.77 [mean ± SD] vs. non-FTE-dependent: 45.81 ± 12.11, P = 0.39), VAS-LP (FTE-dependent: 6.13 ± 2.78 vs. non-FTE-dependent: 6.46 ± 2.79, P = 0.36) and VAS-BP (FTE-dependent: 6.33 ± 2.90 vs. non-FTE-dependent: 6.53 ± 2.48, P = 0.57). Conclusion Our study suggests that there is great reliability between PRO data captured between FTE-dependent and non-FTE-dependent methodologies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)230-234
Number of pages5
JournalWorld Neurosurgery
Volume87
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Interviews
Pain Measurement
Back Pain
Visual Analog Scale
Leg
Surveys and Questionnaires
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Anxiety Disorders
Coronary Artery Disease
Analysis of Variance
Demography
Prospective Studies
Depression
Education
Pain

Keywords

  • FTE-dependent
  • Key words Clinic surveys
  • Non-FTE dependent
  • Oswestry Disability Index
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Phone interviews
  • PROs
  • Visual analog score

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Assessing Patient Reported Outcomes Measures via Phone Interviews Versus Patient Self-Survey in the Clinic : Are We Measuring the Same Thing? / Adogwa, Owoicho; Elsamadicy, Aladine A.; Cheng, Joseph; Bagley, Carlos.

In: World Neurosurgery, Vol. 87, 01.03.2016, p. 230-234.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{df797e11d0f642548445fad4ca02964f,
title = "Assessing Patient Reported Outcomes Measures via Phone Interviews Versus Patient Self-Survey in the Clinic: Are We Measuring the Same Thing?",
abstract = "Background Longitudinally following patients requires a full-time employee (FTE)-dependent data inflow infrastructure. There are efforts to capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by the use of non-FTE-dependent methodologies. In this study, we set out to assess the reliability of PRO data captured via FTE-dependent compared with non-FTE-dependent methodologies. Methods A total of 119 adult patients (65 men) who underwent 1-and 2-level lumbar fusions at Duke University Medical Center were enrolled in this prospective study. Enrollment criteria included available demographic, clinical, and PRO data. All patients completed 2 sets of questionnaires - the first a phone interviews and the second a self-survey. There was at least a 2-week period between the phone interviews and self-survey. Questionnaires included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the visual analog scale for back pain (VAS-BP), and the visual analog scale for leg pain (VAS-LP). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare the reliability of baseline PRO data captured. Results A total of 39.49{\%} of patients were smokers, 21.00{\%} had diabetes, and 11.76{\%} had coronary artery disease; 26.89{\%} reported history of anxiety disorder, and 28.57{\%} reported history of depression. A total of 97.47{\%} of patients had a high-school diploma or General Education Development, and 49.57{\%} attained a 4-year college degree or postgraduate degree. We observed a high correlation between baseline PRO data captured between FTE-dependent versus non-FTE dependent methodologies (ODI: r = -0.89, VAS-BP: r = 0.74, VAS-LP: r = 0.70). There was no difference in PROs of baseline pain and functional disability between FTE-dependent and non-FTE-dependent methodologies: baseline ODI (FTE-dependent: 47.73 ± 16.77 [mean ± SD] vs. non-FTE-dependent: 45.81 ± 12.11, P = 0.39), VAS-LP (FTE-dependent: 6.13 ± 2.78 vs. non-FTE-dependent: 6.46 ± 2.79, P = 0.36) and VAS-BP (FTE-dependent: 6.33 ± 2.90 vs. non-FTE-dependent: 6.53 ± 2.48, P = 0.57). Conclusion Our study suggests that there is great reliability between PRO data captured between FTE-dependent and non-FTE-dependent methodologies.",
keywords = "FTE-dependent, Key words Clinic surveys, Non-FTE dependent, Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-reported outcomes, Phone interviews, PROs, Visual analog score",
author = "Owoicho Adogwa and Elsamadicy, {Aladine A.} and Joseph Cheng and Carlos Bagley",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.wneu.2015.10.092",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "87",
pages = "230--234",
journal = "World Neurosurgery",
issn = "1878-8750",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing Patient Reported Outcomes Measures via Phone Interviews Versus Patient Self-Survey in the Clinic

T2 - Are We Measuring the Same Thing?

AU - Adogwa, Owoicho

AU - Elsamadicy, Aladine A.

AU - Cheng, Joseph

AU - Bagley, Carlos

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Background Longitudinally following patients requires a full-time employee (FTE)-dependent data inflow infrastructure. There are efforts to capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by the use of non-FTE-dependent methodologies. In this study, we set out to assess the reliability of PRO data captured via FTE-dependent compared with non-FTE-dependent methodologies. Methods A total of 119 adult patients (65 men) who underwent 1-and 2-level lumbar fusions at Duke University Medical Center were enrolled in this prospective study. Enrollment criteria included available demographic, clinical, and PRO data. All patients completed 2 sets of questionnaires - the first a phone interviews and the second a self-survey. There was at least a 2-week period between the phone interviews and self-survey. Questionnaires included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the visual analog scale for back pain (VAS-BP), and the visual analog scale for leg pain (VAS-LP). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare the reliability of baseline PRO data captured. Results A total of 39.49% of patients were smokers, 21.00% had diabetes, and 11.76% had coronary artery disease; 26.89% reported history of anxiety disorder, and 28.57% reported history of depression. A total of 97.47% of patients had a high-school diploma or General Education Development, and 49.57% attained a 4-year college degree or postgraduate degree. We observed a high correlation between baseline PRO data captured between FTE-dependent versus non-FTE dependent methodologies (ODI: r = -0.89, VAS-BP: r = 0.74, VAS-LP: r = 0.70). There was no difference in PROs of baseline pain and functional disability between FTE-dependent and non-FTE-dependent methodologies: baseline ODI (FTE-dependent: 47.73 ± 16.77 [mean ± SD] vs. non-FTE-dependent: 45.81 ± 12.11, P = 0.39), VAS-LP (FTE-dependent: 6.13 ± 2.78 vs. non-FTE-dependent: 6.46 ± 2.79, P = 0.36) and VAS-BP (FTE-dependent: 6.33 ± 2.90 vs. non-FTE-dependent: 6.53 ± 2.48, P = 0.57). Conclusion Our study suggests that there is great reliability between PRO data captured between FTE-dependent and non-FTE-dependent methodologies.

AB - Background Longitudinally following patients requires a full-time employee (FTE)-dependent data inflow infrastructure. There are efforts to capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by the use of non-FTE-dependent methodologies. In this study, we set out to assess the reliability of PRO data captured via FTE-dependent compared with non-FTE-dependent methodologies. Methods A total of 119 adult patients (65 men) who underwent 1-and 2-level lumbar fusions at Duke University Medical Center were enrolled in this prospective study. Enrollment criteria included available demographic, clinical, and PRO data. All patients completed 2 sets of questionnaires - the first a phone interviews and the second a self-survey. There was at least a 2-week period between the phone interviews and self-survey. Questionnaires included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the visual analog scale for back pain (VAS-BP), and the visual analog scale for leg pain (VAS-LP). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare the reliability of baseline PRO data captured. Results A total of 39.49% of patients were smokers, 21.00% had diabetes, and 11.76% had coronary artery disease; 26.89% reported history of anxiety disorder, and 28.57% reported history of depression. A total of 97.47% of patients had a high-school diploma or General Education Development, and 49.57% attained a 4-year college degree or postgraduate degree. We observed a high correlation between baseline PRO data captured between FTE-dependent versus non-FTE dependent methodologies (ODI: r = -0.89, VAS-BP: r = 0.74, VAS-LP: r = 0.70). There was no difference in PROs of baseline pain and functional disability between FTE-dependent and non-FTE-dependent methodologies: baseline ODI (FTE-dependent: 47.73 ± 16.77 [mean ± SD] vs. non-FTE-dependent: 45.81 ± 12.11, P = 0.39), VAS-LP (FTE-dependent: 6.13 ± 2.78 vs. non-FTE-dependent: 6.46 ± 2.79, P = 0.36) and VAS-BP (FTE-dependent: 6.33 ± 2.90 vs. non-FTE-dependent: 6.53 ± 2.48, P = 0.57). Conclusion Our study suggests that there is great reliability between PRO data captured between FTE-dependent and non-FTE-dependent methodologies.

KW - FTE-dependent

KW - Key words Clinic surveys

KW - Non-FTE dependent

KW - Oswestry Disability Index

KW - Patient-reported outcomes

KW - Phone interviews

KW - PROs

KW - Visual analog score

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960127624&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960127624&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.10.092

DO - 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.10.092

M3 - Article

C2 - 26548832

AN - SCOPUS:84960127624

VL - 87

SP - 230

EP - 234

JO - World Neurosurgery

JF - World Neurosurgery

SN - 1878-8750

ER -