A research team examined the usability and equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to compared to paper versions to determine if they were suitable for use in prosthetic clinical care and research for people with lower-limb loss. They concluded that electronic versions used in the study can likely be used interchangeably with paper versions.
In the cross-sectional study, ten participants completed the following PROMs online and then on paper:
- Orthotic and Prosthetic User Survey (OPUS)
- Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (MFES)
- Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ)
- Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)
- Community Participation Indicators (CPI)
The participants also answered open-ended and standardized questions regarding the usability of the electronic surveys.
The results indicated that electronic surveys had fewer missing or ambiguous responses than paper surveys, the study’s authors wrote. However, the PEQ Social Burdens subscale could not be evaluated due to error in the creation of the electronic survey. No significant differences were found between scores of the two versions for any of the measures, but multiple participants had meaningful changes in the Appearance and Sounds PEQ subscales.
All measures demonstrated acceptable reliability between versions, except the Appearance, Perceived Response, and Sounds subscales of the PEQ. No systematic biases in scores or usability concerns were found for any measures.
Analysis showed that most of the electronic PROMs studied are easily used and demonstrate equivalence to the paper versions. However, the PEQ Appearance, Perceived Response, Sounds, and Social Burden subscales require further evaluation.
The open-access study, “Evaluating the usability and equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures for individuals with a lower-limb amputation,” was published in the Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics.
