Top

Published in:

12-10-2023 | Fatigue | Original Article

The administration of the paper and electronic versions of the Manual Ability Measure-36 (MAM-36) and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) is equivalent in people with multiple sclerosis

Authors: Andrea Tacchino, Rachele Di Giovanni, Erica Grange, Maria Marcella Spirito, Michela Ponzio, Mario Alberto Battaglia, Giampaolo Brichetto, Claudio Marcello Solaro

Published in: Neurological Sciences | Issue 3/2024

Abstract

Background

The mobile device diffusion has increasingly highlighted the opportunity to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through electronic patient-reported outcomes measurements (ePROMs) during the clinical routine. Despite the ePROMs promises and advantages, the equivalence when a PRO measure is moved from the original paper-and-pencil to the electronic version is still little investigated. This study aims at evaluating equivalence between PROMs and ePROMs self-administration in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS); in addition, preference of self-administration type was evaluated.

Methods

The Manual Ability Measure-36 (MAM-36) and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) were selected for the equivalence test. The app ABOUTCOME was developed through a user-centered design approach to administer the questionnaires on tablet. Both paper-and-pencil and electronic versions were randomly self-administered. Intrarater reliability between both versions was evaluated through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, excellent for values ≥ 0.75).

Results

Fifty PwMS (35 females) participated to the study (mean age: 54.7±11.0 years, disease course: 27 relapsing-remitting and 23 progressive; mean EDSS: 4.7±1.9; mean disease duration: 13.3±9.5 years). No statistically significant differences were found for the means total scores of MAM-36 (p = 0.61) and FSS (p = 0.78). The ICC value for MAM-36 and FSS was excellent (0.98 and 0.94, respectively). Most of participants preferred the tablet version (84%).

Conclusion

The results of the study provide evidence about the equivalence between the paper-and-pencil and electronic versions of PROs administration. In addition, PwMS prefer electronic methods rather than paper because the information can be provided more efficiently and accurately. The results could be easily extended to other MS PROs.

Available only for authorised users

Schick-Makaroff K, Molzahn A (2015) Strategies to use tablet computers for collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 13:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0205-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Klose K, Kreimeier S, Tangermann U, Aumann I, Damm K (2016) Patient- and person-reports on healthcare: preferences, outcomes, experiences, and satisfaction – an essay. Heal Econ Rev 6:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-016-0094-6CrossRef

Griggs CL, Schneider JC, Kazis LE, Ryan CM (2017) Patient-reported outcome measures. Ann Surg 265:1066–1067. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002165CrossRefPubMed

Wiklund I (2004) Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials: the example of health-related quality of life. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 18:351–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-8206.2004.00234.xCrossRefPubMed

Black N (2013) Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 346:f167–f167. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f167CrossRefPubMed

Jette DU, Halbert J, Iverson C, Miceli E, Shah P (2009) Use of standardized outcome measures in physical therapist practice: perceptions and applications. Phys Ther 89:125–135. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080234CrossRefPubMed

Hatfield DR, Ogles BM (2007) Why some clinicians use outcome measures and others do not. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res 34:283–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-006-0110-yCrossRef

Zaratin P, Vermersch P, Amato MP, Brichetto G, Coetzee T, Cutter G, Edan G, Giovannoni G, Gray E, Hartung HP, Hobart J, Helme A, Hyde R, Khan U, Leocani L, Mantovani LG, McBurney R, Montalban X, Penner I-K et al (2022) The agenda of the global patient reported outcomes for multiple sclerosis (PROMS) initiative: progresses and open questions. Mult Scler Relat Disord 61:103757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2022.103757CrossRefPubMed

Dillon DG, Pirie F, Rice S, Pomilla C, Sandhu MS, Motala AA, Young EH (2014) Open-source electronic data capture system offered increased accuracy and cost-effectiveness compared with paper methods in Africa. J Clin Epidemiol 67:1358–1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Jamison RN, Raymond SA, Levine JG, Slawsby EA, Nedeljkovic SS, Katz NP (2001) Electronic diaries for monitoring chronic pain: 1-year validation study. Pain 91:277–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00450-4CrossRefPubMed

11.

Aiyegbusi OL (2020) Key methodological considerations for usability testing of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems. Qual Life Res 29:325–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02329-zCrossRefPubMed

12.

Burdette SD, Herchline TE, Oehler R (2008) Surfing the Web: practicing medicine in a technological age: using smartphones in clinical practice. Clin Infect Dis 47:117–122. https://doi.org/10.1086/588788CrossRefPubMed

13.

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 16:480–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.002CrossRefPubMed

14.

Powell AC, Landman AB, Bates DW (2014) In search of a few good apps. JAMA 311:1851. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.2564CrossRefPubMed

15.

Brichetto G, Pedullà L, Podda J, Tacchino A (2019) Beyond center-based testing: Understanding and improving functioning with wearable technology in MS. Mult Scler:25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458519857075

16.

Kongsved SM, Basnov M, Holm-Christensen K, Hjollund NH (2007) Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: a randomized study of Internet versus paper-and-pencil versions. J Med Internet Res 9:e25. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9.3.e25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

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 11:322–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.xCrossRefPubMed

18.

Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, Lenderking WR, Cella D, Basch E (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 12:419–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.xCrossRefPubMed

19.

Kimura T (2017) The impacts of computer adaptive testing from a variety of perspectives. J Educ Eval Health Prof 14:12. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2017.14.12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Rose M, Bjorner JB, Fischer F, Anatchkova M, Gandek B, Klapp BF, Ware JE (2012) Computerized adaptive testing—ready for ambulatory monitoring? Psychosom Med 74:338–348. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182547392CrossRefPubMed

21.

Cox CE, Wysham NG, Kamal AH, Jones DM, Cass B, Tobin M, White DB, Kahn JM, Hough CL, Carson SS (2016) Usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome system for survivors of critical illness. Am J Crit Care 25:340–349. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2016952CrossRefPubMed

22.

Steele Gray C, Gill A, Khan AI, Hans PK, Kuluski K, Cott C (2016) The electronic patient reported outcome tool: testing usability and feasibility of a mobile app and portal to support care for patients with complex chronic disease and disability in primary care settings. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 4:e58. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.5331CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Shahraz S, Pham TP, Gibson M, De La Cruz M, Baara M, Karnik S, Dell C, Pease S, Nigam S, Cappelleri JC, Lipset C, Zornow P, Lee J, Byrom B (2021) Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study. J Patient Rep Outcomes 5:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00296-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

D’Amico E, Haase R, Ziemssen T (2019) Review: Patient-reported outcomes in multiple sclerosis care. Mult Scler Relat Disord 33:61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2019.05.019CrossRefPubMed

25.

Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A (1998) Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med 17:101–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980115)17:1<101::AID-SIM727>3.0.CO;2-ECrossRefPubMed

26.

Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, Carroll WM, Coetzee T, Comi G, Correale J, Fazekas F, Filippi M, Freedman MS, Fujihara K, Galetta SL, Hartung HP, Kappos L, Lublin FD, Marrie RA, Miller AE, Miller DH, Montalban X et al (2018) Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 17:162–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2CrossRefPubMed

27.

Solaro C, Di Giovanni R, Grange E, Brichetto G, Mueller M, Tacchino A, Bertoni R, Patti F, Pappalardo A, Prosperini L, Castelli L, Rosato R, Cattaneo D, Marengo D (2020) Italian translation and psychometric validation of the Manual Ability Measure-36 (MAM-36) and its correlation with an objective measure of upper limb function in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurol Sci 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-020-04263-2

28.

Ottonello M, Pellicciari L, Giordano A, Foti C (2016) Rasch analysis of the Fatigue Severity Scale in Italian subjects with multiple sclerosis. J Rehabil Med 48:597–603. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2116CrossRefPubMed

29.

Allen-Philbey K, Middleton R, Tuite-Dalton K, Baker E, Stennett A, Albor C, Schmierer K (2020) Can we improve the monitoring of people with multiple sclerosis using simple tools, data sharing, and patient engagement? Front Neurol 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.00464

30.

Inojosa H, Proschmann U, Akgün K, Ziemssen T (2021) Should we use clinical tools to identify disease progression? Front Neurol 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.628542

31.

Manouchehrinia A, Zhu F, Piani-Meier D, Lange M, Silva DG, Carruthers R, Glaser A, Kingwell E, Tremlett H, Hillert J (2019) Predicting risk of secondary progression in multiple sclerosis: a nomogram. Mult Scler J 25:1102–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458518783667CrossRef

32.

Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, Cutter GR, Sorensen PS, Thompson AJ, Wolinsky JS, Balcer LJ, Banwell B, Barkhof F, Bebo B, Calabresi PA, Clanet M, Comi G, Fox RJ, Freedman MS, Goodman AD, Inglese M, Kappos L et al (2014) Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: The 2013 revisions. Neurology 83:278–286. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000000560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

van der Walt A, Butzkueven H, Shin RK, Midaglia L, Capezzuto L, Lindemann M, Davies G, Butler LM, Costantino C, Montalban X (2021) Developing a digital solution for remote assessment in multiple sclerosis: from concept to software as a medical device. Brain Sci 11:1247. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11091247CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Lejbkowicz I, Caspi O, Miller A (2012) Participatory medicine and patient empowerment towards personalized healthcare in multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev Neurother 12:343–352. https://doi.org/10.1586/ern.11.161CrossRefPubMed

35.

Brichetto G, Monti Bragadin M, Fiorini S, Battaglia MA, Konrad G, Ponzio M, Pedullà L, Verri A, Barla A, Tacchino A (2020) The hidden information in patient-reported outcomes and clinician-assessed outcomes: multiple sclerosis as a proof of concept of a machine learning approach. Neurol Sci 41:459–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-019-04093-xCrossRefPubMed

36.

Sun S, Folarin AA, Ranjan Y, Rashid Z, Conde P, Stewart C, Cummins N, Matcham F, Dalla Costa G, Simblett S, Leocani L, Lamers F, Sørensen PS, Buron M, Zabalza A, Guerrero Pérez AI, Penninx BW, Siddi S, Haro JM et al (2020) Using smartphones and wearable devices to monitor behavioral changes during COVID-19. J Med Internet Res 22:e19992. https://doi.org/10.2196/19992CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Bush NE, Skopp N, Smolenski D, Crumpton R, Fairall J (2013) Behavioral screening measures delivered with a smartphone app. J Nerv Ment Dis 201:991–995. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000039CrossRefPubMed

38.

Garcia-Palacios A, Herrero R, Belmonte MA, Castilla D, Guixeres J, Molinari G, Baños RM, Botella C (2014) Ecological momentary assessment for chronic pain in fibromyalgia using a smartphone: A randomized crossover study. Eur J Pain 18:862–872. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1532-2149.2013.00425.xCrossRefPubMed

39.

Bierbrier R, Lo V, Wu RC (2014) Evaluation of the accuracy of smartphone medical calculation apps. J Med Internet Res 16:e32. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3062CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Teixeira Neto NC, Lima YL, Almeida GPL, Bezerra MA, Lima PODP, de Oliveira RR (2018) Physiotherapy questionnaires app to deliver main musculoskeletal assessment questionnaires: development and validation study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 5:e1. https://doi.org/10.2196/rehab.9247CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Marcano Belisario JS, Jamsek J, Huckvale K, O’Donoghue J, Morrison CP, Car J (2015) Comparison of self-administered survey questionnaire responses collected using mobile apps versus other methods. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000042.pub2

42.

Feys P, Giovannoni G, Dijsselbloem N, Centonze D, Eelen P, Lykke Andersen S (2016) The importance of a multi-disciplinary perspective and patient activation programmes in MS management. Mult Scler J 22:34–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458516650741CrossRef

43.

Marziniak M, Brichetto G, Feys P, Meyding-Lamadé U, Vernon K, Meuth SG (2018) The use of digital and remote communication technologies as a tool for multiple sclerosis management: narrative review. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 5:e5. https://doi.org/10.2196/rehab.7805CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Cancela J, Charlafti I, Colloud S, Wu C (2021) Digital health in the era of personalized healthcare. In: Digital Health. Elsevier, pp 7–31CrossRef

45.

Brichetto G (2020) We should monitor our patients with wearable technology instead of neurological examination – commentary. Mult Scler J 26:1028–1030. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458520930985CrossRef

46.

Salimzadeh Z, Damanabi S, Kalankesh L, Ferdousi R (2019) Mobile applications for multiple sclerosis: a focus on self-management. Acta Inform Med 27:12. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2019.27.12-18CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: The administration of the paper and electronic versions of the Manual Ability Measure-36 (MAM-36) and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) is equivalent in people with multiple sclerosis
Authors: Andrea Tacchino
Rachele Di Giovanni
Erica Grange
Maria Marcella Spirito
Michela Ponzio
Mario Alberto Battaglia
Giampaolo Brichetto
Claudio Marcello Solaro
Publication date: 12-10-2023
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Fatigue
Multiple Sclerosis
Published in: Neurological Sciences / Issue 3/2024
Print ISSN: 1590-1874
Electronic ISSN: 1590-3478
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-023-07103-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The administration of the paper and electronic versions of the Manual Ability Measure-36 (MAM-36) and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) is equivalent in people with multiple sclerosis

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2024

Association of APOE gene with longitudinal changes of CSF amyloid beta and tau levels in Alzheimer’s disease: racial differences

Letter to the Editor: a case of autoimmune glial fibrillary acidic protein astrocytopathy with acute paralytic ileus as initial symptom

Rituximab as a sole steroid-sparing agent in generalized myasthenia gravis: Long-term outcomes

A case of Mills’ syndrome: initially characterized by one cerebral hemisphere atrophy and decreased brain metabolism then evolving into amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Subarachnoid hemorrhage due to pituitary adenoma apoplexy—case report and review of the literature

Current status and value of testing antiphospholipid antibody in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a retrospective single-center study in China