University of Hertfordshire

  • Pushpendra Goswami
  • Esther Oliva
  • Tatyana Ionova
  • R Else
  • J Kell
  • AK Fielding
  • DM Jennings
  • M Karakantza
  • S Al-Ismail
  • J Lyness
  • GP Collins
  • S McConnell
  • C Langton
  • MJ Al-Obaidi
  • M Oblak
  • Mir-Saeed Shayegan Salek
View graph of relations
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)523-533
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Early online date30 Apr 2019
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 30 Apr 2019


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.


© 2019 Goswami, Oliva, Ionova et al.

ID: 16689222