Comparison between an electronic version of the foot and ankle outcome score and the standard paper version

Abstract

To prove the equivalence of the Korean version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) in the printed (PFAOS) vs the electronic (EFAOS) form in a multicenter randomized study.Overall, 227 patients with ages ranging from 20 to 79 years from 16 dedicated foot and ankle centers were included. Patients were randomized into either a ‘paper first’ group (P-F group, n = 113) or an ‘electronic device (tablet computer) first’ group (E-F group, n = 114). The first evaluation either by paper (P-F group) or tablet (E-F group) was followed by a second evaluation the following day. The difference between the PFAOS and EFAOS results in each group was calculated and analyzed. To evaluate the benefit of each methodology, the time consumed per evaluation was compared and patients were asked which methodology they preferred and which was the easiest to use.There were no significant differences in age or sex between the groups. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value of 0.934 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.912–0.950, P < .001) was confirmed in PFAOS and EFAOS, showing a significant correlation between the 2 methodologies. EFAOS was completed in a shorter amount of time than PFAOS. The majority of patients agreed that EFAOS was easier to complete than PFAOS.The paper or electronic forms of the Korean adaptation of FAOS were considered equivalent. The shorter time of completion and the preference for the electronic version over paper by patients deems the electronic FAOS a promising option to consider in future.

The use of electronic PROMs provides same outcomes as paper version in a spine surgery registry. Results from a prospective cohort study

“…Several correlation studies proved the correlation between paper and electronic format of PROMs [9]. Our results were consistent with scientific literature examining the reliability and consistency of the electronic versions of the PROMs, along with result comparability with the paper form [24].…”

“…The development of a clinical registry allows merging a large amount of data [8], and traditional paper-based systems seem expensive and inefficient compared to electronic ones [9]. The electronic administration of PROMs allows an easier collection and management of a considerable volume of data, thus facilitating the workflow.…”

“…Furthermore, an electronic format also permits the collection of all data in a single database and makes them readily available for extraction and further analysis. To achieve the goal of merging all the data regarding a patient in one electronic dataset, a validation of the electronic version of PROMs is required, as factors like the graphic organization of the elements on a screen or the impossibility to skip questions may alter the way patients answer the questionnaire [9].…”

Measures of Foot Pain, Foot Function, and General Foot Health

“…The FAOS is relatively long compared with other scales (42 items) and may therefore be too burdensome for routine clinical use. An evaluation of the Korean version demonstrated that paper and electronic (tablet) formats provided equivalent results, although patients found the electronic version easier to complete .…”

Validation of Remote Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes Using Patients' Smartphones

“…2) Although PROs have traditionally been collected through pencil-and-paper questionnaires, web-enabled tablets and computers are becoming a frequent method for data collection in recent years. [3][4][5] Both modes require patients to visit the healthcare facility and set aside additional time to fill out the questionnaire during their outpatient appointment. This is time-consuming and requires manpower.…”