Collection of patient-reported outcomes; - text messages on mobile phones provide valid scores and high response rates

Abstract

BackgroundPatients 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.MethodsTo 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.ResultsMean 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.ConclusionOutcomes 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.

Evaluating CollaboRATE in a clinical setting: analysis of mode effects on scores, response rates and costs of data collection

“…16 In a systematic review of survey response rates, email delivery was associated with response rates of 15%, 17 similar to the 14% response rate for CG-CAHPS delivered by email. 16 SMS administration has associated response rates ranging from 49% to 98%, [18][19][20][21] and data quality comparable to that collected by person-led phone interviews or IVR. 21 The cost of PREM administration has significant implications, yet receives little attention.…”

A Systematic Review of the mHealth Interventions to Prevent Alcohol and Substance Abuse

“…The content of the mobile features is tailored to specific populations, and the intervention may be delivered in conjunction with other therapies. mHealth interventions have been proven as evidence-based methods for concentrating on health treatments (Bock et al, 2015; Mason, Benotsch, Way, Kim, & Snipes, 2014) and have been used successfully for clinical assessment and education in medicine and public health (Christie, Dagfinrud, Dale, Schulz, & Hagen, 2014; Cooray, Matusevicius, Wahlgren, & Ahmed, 2015). Meta-analysis studies of mHealth clinical interventions for smoking cessation, weight loss, and diabetes control demonstrate these interventions are both cost effective and beneficial (Bakken et al, 2014; Gerber, Stolley, Thompson, Sharp, & Fitzgibbon, 2009; Pal et al, 2014; Riley, Obermayer, & Jean-Mary, 2008; Whittaker et al, 2012; Wieland et al, 2012).…”

Electronic and paper mode of data capture when assessing patient‐reported outcomes in the National Dental Practice‐Based Research Network

“…Patients with rheumatic diseases have expressed a need for frequent measurements of relevant outcomes, including patient‐reported outcomes that are extensively collected with pen‐and‐paper questionnaires. Christie et al described collection of patient‐reported outcomes in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease via text messages on mobile telephones when compared with a pen‐and‐paper modality . Patient‐reported outcomes assessed using numeric rating scales and reported with text messages on mobile telephones or with pen‐and‐paper questionnaires provided comparable scores.…”

“…Patient‐reported outcomes assessed using numeric rating scales and reported with text messages on mobile telephones or with pen‐and‐paper questionnaires provided comparable scores. Furthermore, the text messages modality provided high response rates in a multicenter setting . Hawley et al compared paper records and electronic health records for completeness .…”