Test-retest reliability of a mobile application of the patient reported outcomes burdens and experiences (PROBE) study

被引:0
|
作者
Curtis, Randall [1 ,13 ]
Wu, Joanne [2 ]
Iorio, Alfonso [3 ,4 ]
Frick, Neil [5 ]
Nichol, Michael [2 ]
Noone, Declan [6 ]
O'Mahony, Brian [6 ,7 ]
Page, David [8 ]
Stonebraker, Jeffrey [9 ]
Kucher, Alexandra [10 ]
Clearfield, Elizabeth [11 ]
Skinner, Mark W. [4 ,11 ]
Germini, Federico [3 ,4 ,12 ]
机构
[1] Factor VIII Comp, Berkeley, CA USA
[2] Univ Southern Calif, Sol Price Sch Publ Policy, Los Angeles, CA USA
[3] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[4] McMaster Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[5] Natl Hemophilia Fdn, New York, NY USA
[6] Irish Haemophilia Soc, Dublin, Ireland
[7] Trinity Coll Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
[8] Canadian Hemophilia Soc, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[9] North Carolina State Univ, Poole Coll Management, Raleigh, NC USA
[10] Patient Outcomes Res Grp Ltd, Washington, DC USA
[11] Inst Policy Dev Ltd, Washington, DC USA
[12] IRCCS Humanitas Res Hosp, Clin Epidemiol & Res Ctr CERC, Milan, Italy
[13] 16 Peterson Pl, Walnut Creek, CA 94595 USA
关键词
haemophilia; mobile application; patient reported outcome; quality of life; questionnaire; reliability; THERAPIES;
D O I
10.1111/hae.14969
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
IntroductionThe Patient Reported Outcomes, Burdens, and Experiences (PROBE) questionnaire is a patient-reported outcome tool that assesses quality of life and disease burden in people with haemophilia (PWH).AimTo assesses the test-retest reliability of PROBE when completed using the mobile phone application.MethodsWe recruited PWH, including carriers, and individuals with no bleeding disorders who attended haemophilia-related workshops or via social media. Participants completed PROBE three times (twice on the app: T1 and T2, and once on the web, T3). Test-retest reliability was analysed for T1 versus T2 (app to app, time period one) and T2 versus T3 (app to web, time period two).ResultsWe enrolled 48 participants (median age = 56 [range 27-78] years). Eighteen participants (37.5%) were PWH and seven (14.6%) were carriers. On general health domain questions, we found almost perfect agreement, except for a question on the frequency of use of pain medication in the last 12 months [Kappa coefficient (kappa) .72 and .37 for time period one and two, respectively] and any use of pain medications (kappa .75) for time period two. For haemophilia-related questions, we found substantial to perfect agreement, except for the questions on the number of joint bleeds in the previous 6 months for time period one (kappa .49) and the number of bleeds in the previous two weeks for time period two (kappa .34).ConclusionsThe results demonstrate the reliability of the PROBE app. The app can be used interchangeably with the paper and web platforms for PROBE administration.
引用
收藏
页码:702 / 708
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Otoacoustic emission measurements: a test-retest reliability study
    Yagcioglu, Aysenur Aykul
    Ozturk, Burak
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY, 2023, 39 (01)
  • [12] Test-retest Reliability of Various Psychoacoustic Tests in Psycon Application
    Mathew, Supriya
    Kumar, Sandeep
    Tanniru, Kishore
    Jain, Chandni
    AUDITORY AND VESTIBULAR RESEARCH, 2023, 32 (02): : 114 - 120
  • [13] Patient-reported visual function outcome in cataract surgery: test-retest reliability of the Catquest-9SF questionnaire
    Grimfors, Magnus
    Lundstrom, Mats
    Hammar, Ulf
    Kugelberg, Maria
    ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2020, 98 (08) : 828 - 832
  • [14] Exploring regional variations in the cross-cultural, international implementation of the Patient Reported Outcomes Burdens and Experience (PROBE) study
    Chai-Adisaksopha, Chatree
    Skinner, Mark W.
    Curtis, Randall
    Frick, Neil
    Nichol, Michael B.
    Noone, Declan
    O'Mahony, Brian
    Page, David
    Stonebraker, Jeffrey
    Thabane, Lehana
    Crowther, Mark A.
    Iorio, Alfonso
    HAEMOPHILIA, 2019, 25 (03) : 365 - 372
  • [15] The vestibular evoked myogenic potential: A test-retest reliability study
    Maes, Leen
    Vinck, Bart M.
    De Vel, Eddy
    D'haenens, Wendy
    Bockstael, Annelies
    Keppler, Hannah
    Philips, Birgit
    Swinnen, Freya
    Dhooge, Ingeborg
    CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2009, 120 (03) : 594 - 600
  • [16] A disease-specific questionnaire for measuring patient-reported outcomes and experiences in the Swedish National Diabetes Register: Development and evaluation of content validity, face validity, and test-retest reliability
    Engstrom, Maria Svedbo
    Leksell, Janeth
    Johansson, Unn-Britt
    Eeg-Olofsson, Katarina
    Borg, Sixten
    Palaszewski, Bo
    Gudbjornsdottir, Soffia
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2018, 101 (01) : 139 - 146
  • [17] Test-retest reliability and validity of self-reported duration of computer use at work
    IJmker, Stefan
    Leijssen, Josien N. M.
    Blatter, Birgitte M.
    van der Beek, Allard J.
    van Mechelen, Willem
    Bongers, Paulien M.
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH, 2008, 34 (02) : 113 - 119
  • [18] Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in wrist osteoarthritis: test-retest reliability and construct validity
    Larsson, Sara L.
    Brogren, Elisabeth
    Dahlin, Lars B.
    Bjorkman, Anders
    Ekstrand, Elisabeth
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2022, 23 (01)
  • [19] Evaluating the reliability of an injury prevention screening tool: Test-retest study
    Gittelman, Michael A.
    Kincaid, Madeline
    Denny, Sarah
    Arnold, Melissa Wervey
    FitzGerald, Michael
    Carle, Adam C.
    Mara, Constance A.
    JOURNAL OF TRAUMA AND ACUTE CARE SURGERY, 2016, 81 (04) : S8 - S13
  • [20] Exploring the test-retest differences of self-reported adverse childhood experiences among adolescents in residential treatment
    Schauss, Eraina
    Zettler, Haley
    Patel, Meera
    Hawes, Kiersten
    Dixon, Paige
    Bartelli, Debra
    Ellmo, Frances
    Naik, Surabhi
    Suchomelly, Faith
    Cogdal, Pam
    West, Steven
    JOURNAL OF FAMILY TRAUMA CHILD CUSTODY & CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 2021, 18 (03) : 263 - 278