Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: Mar 18, 2021
Date Accepted: Oct 3, 2021
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Data Quality of Longitudinally Collected Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) after Thoracic Surgery: A Comparison of Paper- and Web-Based Assessments
ABSTRACT
Background:
High-frequent patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments are used to measure patients’ symptoms after surgery for surgical research; however, quality of those longitudinal PRO data has seldom been discussed.
Objective:
To describe errors, to identify factors influencing the data quality, and to profile error trajectories of data longitudinally collected via paper-and-pencil (P&P) or web-based-assessment (ePRO) after thoracic surgery.
Methods:
We extracted longitudinal PRO data from two prospective clinical studies. PROs were assessed by the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Lung Cancer Module and single-item Quality of Life Scale before surgery and then daily after surgery until discharge or up to 14 days of hospitalization. Patient compliance and data error were identified and compared between P&P and ePRO. Generalized estimating equations models and two-piecewise models were used to describe trajectories of error incidence over time and to identify the risk factors.
Results:
Among 629 patients with at least 2 PRO assessments, 440 completed 3347 P&P assessments and 189 completed 1291 ePRO assessments. In total, 49.44% of patients had at least 1 error, including 1) missing items (64.69%), 2) modifications without signatures (27.99%), 3) selection of multiple options (3.02%), 4) missing patient signatures (2.54%), 5) missing researcher signatures (1.45%) and 6) missing completion dates (0.3%). ePRO patients had fewer errors than P&P patients (30.16% vs. 57.73%, p <0.0001). Compared with ePRO patients, those using P&P were older, less educated and sicker. Common risk factors of having errors were with a lower education level (P&P, OR=1.39, 95%CL=1.20-1.62, p<.0001; ePRO, OR=1.82, 95%CI=1.22-2.72, p=0.0032), treated in a provincial hospital (P&P, OR=3.34, 95%CI=2.10-5.33, p<.0001; ePRO, OR=4.73, 95%CI=2.18-10.25, p<.0001) and with severe disease (P&P, OR=1.63, 95%CI=1.33-1.99, p<.0001; ePRO, OR=2.70, 95%CI=1.53-4.75, p=0.0006). Errors peaked on postoperative day (POD) 1 for P&P, and on POD 2 for ePRO.
Conclusions:
ePRO might be superior to P&P in terms of data quality. However, sampling bias needs to be considered for studies using longitudinal PROs as major outcomes.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.