Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2016

01-10-2016 | Original Article

Evaluation of quality of life using a tablet PC-based survey in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a multi-institutional prospective randomized crossover comparison of paper and tablet PC-based questionnaires (KROG 12–01)

Authors: Haeyoung Kim, Hee Chul Park, Sang Min Yoon, Tae Hyun Kim, Jinsung Kim, Min Kyu Kang, Jinhong Jung, Sang-Won Kim, Ji Woon Yea, Sung Ho Park, Young Suk Park

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

This study compared a tablet PC questionnaire with a paper method for reliability and patient preferences in the acquisition of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients treated with radiotherapy. By comparing the two modes of PRO administration, we aimed to evaluate the adequacy of using tablet PC questionnaires in future clinical use.

Methods

Patients were randomized in a crossover study design using two different methods for PRO entry. A group of 89 patients answered a paper questionnaire followed by the tablet PC version, whereas 89 patients in another group completed the tablet PC questionnaire followed by the paper version. Surveys were performed four times per patient throughout the course of the radiotherapy. The Korean versions of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-K) and the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI-K) were used. The primary endpoint of our current study was an assessment of patient preference for the survey method. The proportions of patients preferring each mode of questionnaire were evaluated.

Results

The proportion of patients who preferred the tablet PC version, paper form, or who had no preference was 52.2, 22.1, and 25.7 %, respectively. More than half of the patients preferred the tablet PC to the paper version in all four surveys. Age, gender, educational status, prior experience of using a tablet PC, and the order of paper to tablet PC administration did not impact patient preferences. Inter-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) between the modes were 0.92 for MDASI-K and 0.94 for BFI-K and ranged from 0.91 to 0.96 on both instruments during the four surveys.

Conclusions

A tablet PC-based PRO is an acceptable and reliable method compared with paper-based data collection for Korean patients receiving radiotherapy.
Literature
1.
Patrick DL, Guyatt GH, Acquadro C (2011) Patient-reported outcomes In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 510 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration www.​cochrane-handbook.​org. Accessed September 22 2015
2.
Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, Lenderking WR, Cella D, Basch E, Force IT (2009) Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health 12:419–429CrossRefPubMed
3.
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, Scott JA, Rock EP, Dawisha S, O’Neill R, Kennedy DL (2007) Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 10(Suppl 2):S125–137CrossRefPubMed
4.
Fallowfield L, Jenkins V (2002) Acronymic trials: the good, the bad, and the coercive. Lancet 360:1622CrossRefPubMed
5.
Jensen RE, Rothrock NE, DeWitt EM, Spiegel B, Tucker CA, Crane HM, Forrest CB, Patrick DL, Fredericksen R, Shulman LM, Cella D, Crane PK (2015) The role of technical advances in the adoption and integration of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care. Med Care 53:153–159CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB, Cull A, Gould A, Forman D, Perren T, Stead M, Brown J, Selby PJ (1999) Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 17:998–1007PubMed
7.
8.
Sundaresan P, Sullivan L, Pendlebury S, Kirby A, Rodger A, Joseph D, Campbell I, Dhillon HM, Stockler MR (2015) Patients’ perceptions of health-related quality of life during and after adjuvant radiotherapy for T1N0M0 breast cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 27:9–15CrossRef
9.
Astrup GL, Rustoen T, Miaskowski C, Paul SM, Bjordal K (2015) A longitudinal study of depressive symptoms in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Cancer Nurs 38:436–446CrossRefPubMed
10.
Guren MG, Dueland S, Skovlund E, Fossa SD, Poulsen JP, Tveit KM (2003) Quality of life during radiotherapy for rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 39:587–594CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S (2008) Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 11:322–333CrossRefPubMed
13.
Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR, Wang XS, Chou C, Harle MT, Morrissey M, Engstrom MC (2000) Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients: the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Cancer 89:1634–1646CrossRefPubMed
14.
Yun YH, Mendoza TR, Kang IO, You CH, Roh JW, Lee CG, Lee WS, Lee KS, Bang SM, Park SM, Cleeland CS, Wang XS (2006) Validation study of the Korean version of the M. D Anderson Symptom Inventory J Pain Symptom Manage 31:345–352CrossRef
15.
Mendoza TR, Wang XS, Cleeland CS, Morrissey M, Johnson BA, Wendt JK, Huber SL (1999) The rapid assessment of fatigue severity in cancer patients: use of the Brief Fatigue Inventory. Cancer 85:1186–1196CrossRefPubMed
16.
Yun YH, Wang XS, Lee JS, Roh JW, Lee CG, Lee WS, Lee KS, Bang SM, Mendoza TR, Cleeland CS (2005) Validation study of the Korean version of the brief fatigue inventory. J Pain Symptom Manage 29:165–172CrossRefPubMed
17.
Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, Guyatt G, Ferrans CE, Halyard MY, Revicki DA, Symonds T, Parada A, Alonso J (2008) The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 17:179–193CrossRefPubMed
18.
Chapman CR, Donaldson GW, Davis JJ, Bradshaw DH (2011) Improving individual measurement of postoperative pain: the pain trajectory. J Pain 12:257–262CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Coons SJ, Eremenco S, Lundy JJ, O’Donohoe P, O’Gorman H, Malizia W (2015) Capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data electronically: the past, present, and promisE of ePRO measurement in clinical trials. Patient 8:301–309CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Abernethy AP, Herndon JE 2nd, Wheeler JL, Day JM, Hood L, Patwardhan M, Shaw H, Lyerly HK (2009) Feasibility and acceptability to patients of a longitudinal system for evaluating cancer-related symptoms and quality of life: pilot study of an e/tablet data-collection system in academic oncology. J Pain Symptom Manage 37:1027–1038CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zbrozek A, Hebert J, Gogates G, Thorell R, Dell C, Molsen E, Craig G, Grice K, Kern S, Hines S (2013) Validation of electronic systems to collect patient-reported outcome (PRO) data-recommendations for clinical trial teams: report of the ISPOR ePRO systems validation good research practices task force. Value Health 16:480–489CrossRefPubMed
23.
Yeomans A (2014) The future of ePRO platforms. Appl Clin Trials 23:14–19
24.
Lawrence ST, Willig JH, Crane HM, Ye J, Aban I, Lober W, Nevin CR, Batey DS, Mugavero MJ, McCullumsmith C, Wright C, Kitahata M, Raper JL, Saag MS, Schumacher JE (2010) Routine, self-administered, touch-screen, computer-based suicidal ideation assessment linked to automated response team notification in an HIV primary care setting. Clin Infect Dis 50:1165–1173CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of quality of life using a tablet PC-based survey in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: a multi-institutional prospective randomized crossover comparison of paper and tablet PC-based questionnaires (KROG 12–01)
Authors
Haeyoung Kim
Hee Chul Park
Sang Min Yoon
Tae Hyun Kim
Jinsung Kim
Min Kyu Kang
Jinhong Jung
Sang-Won Kim
Ji Woon Yea
Sung Ho Park
Young Suk Park
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3280-5

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2016 Go to the issue

Original Article

Knowledge, attitudes, and influencing factors of cancer patients toward approving advance directives in China

Original Article

The palatability of oral nutritional supplements: before, during, and after chemotherapy

Original Article

Attitudes and experiences of family involvement in cancer consultations: a qualitative exploration of patient and family member perspectives

Original Article

Barriers and facilitators in coping with patient death in clinical oncology

Original Article

The association between patient’s and partner’s fatigue in couples coping with colorectal cancer: a longitudinal study

Original Article

Exceptional patients and communication in cancer care—are we missing another survival factor?
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits