University of Hertfordshire

Standard

Paper and electronic versions of HM-PRO, a novel patient-reported outcome measure for hematology: an equivalence study. / Goswami, Pushpendra; Oliva, Esther; Ionova, Tatyana; Else, R; Kell, J; Fielding, AK; Jennings, DM; Karakantza , M; Al-Ismail, S; Lyness, J; Collins, GP; McConnell , S; Langton, C; Al-Obaidi, MJ; Oblak, M; Salek, Mir-Saeed Shayegan.

In: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Vol. 8, No. 7, 30.04.2019, p. 523-533.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Goswami, P, Oliva, E, Ionova, T, Else, R, Kell, J, Fielding, AK, Jennings, DM, Karakantza , M, Al-Ismail, S, Lyness, J, Collins, GP, McConnell , S, Langton, C, Al-Obaidi, MJ, Oblak, M & Salek, M-SS 2019, 'Paper and electronic versions of HM-PRO, a novel patient-reported outcome measure for hematology: an equivalence study.', Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 523-533. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0108

APA

Vancouver

Author

Goswami, Pushpendra ; Oliva, Esther ; Ionova, Tatyana ; Else, R ; Kell, J ; Fielding, AK ; Jennings, DM ; Karakantza , M ; Al-Ismail, S ; Lyness, J ; Collins, GP ; McConnell , S ; Langton, C ; Al-Obaidi, MJ ; Oblak, M ; Salek, Mir-Saeed Shayegan. / Paper and electronic versions of HM-PRO, a novel patient-reported outcome measure for hematology: an equivalence study. In: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2019 ; Vol. 8, No. 7. pp. 523-533.

Bibtex

@article{5ef845f390a94dbdabbe8a9726b02b6c,
title = "Paper and electronic versions of HM-PRO, a novel patient-reported outcome measure for hematology: an equivalence study.",
abstract = "Aim:To determine measurement equivalence of paper and electronic application of the hematologi-cal malignancy-patient-reported outcome (HM-PRO), a specific measure for the evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in HMs.Patients & methods:Following International Society of Pharmacoeconomicsand Outcomes Research ePRO Good Research Practice Task Force guidelines, a total of 193 adult patientswith different HMs were recruited into a multicenter prospective study. The paper and the electronic ver-sion of the instrument were completed in the outpatient clinics in a randomized crossover design with a30-min time interval to minimize the learning effect. Those who completed the paper version first, com-pleted the electronic version after 30 min and vice versa. Instrument version and order effects were testedon total score of the two parts of the HM-PRO (Part A: quality of life and Part B: signs & symptoms) in atwo-way ANOVA with patients as random effects. Intraclass correlation coefficients (95{\%} CI) and Spear-man’s rank correlation coefficients were used to evaluate test–retest reliability and reproducibility. Theeffects of instrument version and order were tested on total score of the two parts of HM-PRO.Results:The questionnaire version and administration order effects were not significant at the 5{\%} level. Therewere no interactions found between these two factors for HM-PRO (Part A [quality of life]; p=0.95); and(part B [signs and symptoms]; p=0.72]. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were greater than 0.9, andintraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.94 to 0.98; furthermore, the scores were not statisticallydifferent between the two versions, showing acceptable reliability indexes. Noteworthy, the differencebetween the completion time for both paper (mean=6:38 min) and electronic version (mean=7:29 min)was not statistically significant (n=100; p=0.11). Patients did not report any difficulty in completing theelectronic version during cognitive interviews and were able to understand and respond spontaneously.Conclusion:Measurement equivalence has been demonstrated for the paper and electronic applicationof the HM-PRO.",
keywords = "HM-PRO, hematological malignancy, paper/electronic PRO",
author = "Pushpendra Goswami and Esther Oliva and Tatyana Ionova and R Else and J Kell and AK Fielding and DM Jennings and M Karakantza and S Al-Ismail and J Lyness and GP Collins and S McConnell and C Langton and MJ Al-Obaidi and M Oblak and Salek, {Mir-Saeed Shayegan}",
note = "{\circledC} 2019 Goswami, Oliva, Ionova et al.",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "30",
doi = "10.2217/cer-2018-0108",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "523--533",
journal = "Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research",
issn = "2042-6305",
publisher = "Future Medicine Ltd.",
number = "7",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Paper and electronic versions of HM-PRO, a novel patient-reported outcome measure for hematology: an equivalence study.

AU - Goswami, Pushpendra

AU - Oliva, Esther

AU - Ionova, Tatyana

AU - Else, R

AU - Kell, J

AU - Fielding, AK

AU - Jennings, DM

AU - Karakantza , M

AU - Al-Ismail, S

AU - Lyness, J

AU - Collins, GP

AU - McConnell , S

AU - Langton, C

AU - Al-Obaidi, MJ

AU - Oblak, M

AU - Salek, Mir-Saeed Shayegan

N1 - © 2019 Goswami, Oliva, Ionova et al.

PY - 2019/4/30

Y1 - 2019/4/30

N2 - Aim:To determine measurement equivalence of paper and electronic application of the hematologi-cal malignancy-patient-reported outcome (HM-PRO), a specific measure for the evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in HMs.Patients & methods:Following International Society of Pharmacoeconomicsand Outcomes Research ePRO Good Research Practice Task Force guidelines, a total of 193 adult patientswith different HMs were recruited into a multicenter prospective study. The paper and the electronic ver-sion of the instrument were completed in the outpatient clinics in a randomized crossover design with a30-min time interval to minimize the learning effect. Those who completed the paper version first, com-pleted the electronic version after 30 min and vice versa. Instrument version and order effects were testedon total score of the two parts of the HM-PRO (Part A: quality of life and Part B: signs & symptoms) in atwo-way ANOVA with patients as random effects. Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% CI) and Spear-man’s rank correlation coefficients were used to evaluate test–retest reliability and reproducibility. Theeffects of instrument version and order were tested on total score of the two parts of HM-PRO.Results:The questionnaire version and administration order effects were not significant at the 5% level. Therewere no interactions found between these two factors for HM-PRO (Part A [quality of life]; p=0.95); and(part B [signs and symptoms]; p=0.72]. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were greater than 0.9, andintraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.94 to 0.98; furthermore, the scores were not statisticallydifferent between the two versions, showing acceptable reliability indexes. Noteworthy, the differencebetween the completion time for both paper (mean=6:38 min) and electronic version (mean=7:29 min)was not statistically significant (n=100; p=0.11). Patients did not report any difficulty in completing theelectronic version during cognitive interviews and were able to understand and respond spontaneously.Conclusion:Measurement equivalence has been demonstrated for the paper and electronic applicationof the HM-PRO.

AB - Aim:To determine measurement equivalence of paper and electronic application of the hematologi-cal malignancy-patient-reported outcome (HM-PRO), a specific measure for the evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in HMs.Patients & methods:Following International Society of Pharmacoeconomicsand Outcomes Research ePRO Good Research Practice Task Force guidelines, a total of 193 adult patientswith different HMs were recruited into a multicenter prospective study. The paper and the electronic ver-sion of the instrument were completed in the outpatient clinics in a randomized crossover design with a30-min time interval to minimize the learning effect. Those who completed the paper version first, com-pleted the electronic version after 30 min and vice versa. Instrument version and order effects were testedon total score of the two parts of the HM-PRO (Part A: quality of life and Part B: signs & symptoms) in atwo-way ANOVA with patients as random effects. Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% CI) and Spear-man’s rank correlation coefficients were used to evaluate test–retest reliability and reproducibility. Theeffects of instrument version and order were tested on total score of the two parts of HM-PRO.Results:The questionnaire version and administration order effects were not significant at the 5% level. Therewere no interactions found between these two factors for HM-PRO (Part A [quality of life]; p=0.95); and(part B [signs and symptoms]; p=0.72]. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were greater than 0.9, andintraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.94 to 0.98; furthermore, the scores were not statisticallydifferent between the two versions, showing acceptable reliability indexes. Noteworthy, the differencebetween the completion time for both paper (mean=6:38 min) and electronic version (mean=7:29 min)was not statistically significant (n=100; p=0.11). Patients did not report any difficulty in completing theelectronic version during cognitive interviews and were able to understand and respond spontaneously.Conclusion:Measurement equivalence has been demonstrated for the paper and electronic applicationof the HM-PRO.

KW - HM-PRO

KW - hematological malignancy

KW - paper/electronic PRO

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065670913&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2217/cer-2018-0108

DO - 10.2217/cer-2018-0108

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 523

EP - 533

JO - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

T2 - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

JF - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

SN - 2042-6305

IS - 7

ER -