J Adv Prosthodont.  2016 Dec;8(6):457-464. 10.4047/jap.2016.8.6.457.

Comparing a tablet computer and paper forms for assessing patient-reported outcomes in edentulous patients

• Caetano TA
• Ribeiro AB
• Della Vecchia MP
• Cunha TR
• Chaves CD
• de Souza R

• KMID: 2382591
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.6.457

Abstract

PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to determine whether two methods of documentation, print and electronic forms, for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in complete denture wearers provide comparable results. The study also quantified the time needed for filling the forms by each method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Thirty participants enrolled in a university clinic answered two forms (a questionnaire for denture satisfaction and OHIP-EDENT). They provided answers with two application methods in a random order, with a one-month interval between them: (1) electronic forms on a tablet computer; and (2) print forms. The methods were compared in terms of mean results, correlation/agreement, internal consistency, and spent time.
RESULTS
Mean results for both methods were similar for each denture satisfaction item (100-mm VAS) and OHIP-EDENT summary score. Both questionnaires presented good internal consistency regardless of the application method (Cronbach's α=0.86 or higher). Correlation and agreement between the methods regarding specific items was at least moderate for the majority of cases. Mean time for the electronic and print forms were 9.2 and 8.5 minutes, respectively (paired t test, P=.06, non-significant).
CONCLUSION
The electronic method is comparable to print forms for the assessment of important PRO of prosthetic treatment for edentulism, considering the results and time needed. Findings suggest the viability of replacing print forms with a tablet for applying the tested inventories in clinical trials.

Keyword

Comparative study; Patient satisfaction; Quality of life; Questionnaires; Treatment outcome

MeSH Terms

Computers, Handheld*
Denture, Complete
Dentures
Equipment and Supplies
Humans
Methods
Patient Satisfaction
Quality of Life
Treatment Outcome

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Flow diagram of participants through the study.

• 

  Fig. 2 Bland-Altman plots for denture satisfaction/item 2 (overall satisfaction) and OHIP-EDENT summary score. Solid reference lines and dashed lines represent the mean difference between methods and limits of agreement (mean difference ± 1.96 SD), respectively.

Reference

1. Strassburger C, Heydecke G, Kerschbaum T. Influence of prosthetic and implant therapy on satisfaction and quality of life: a systematic literature review. Part 1-Characteristics of the studies. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17:83–93.

2. Petersen PE, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, Estupinan-Day S, Ndiaye C. The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bull World Health Organ. 2005; 83:661–669.

3. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Heydecke G, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais JA, Naert I, Payne AG, Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology. 2002; 19:3–4.

4. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, Lundy JJ, Sloan JA, Revicki DA, Lenderking WR, Cella D, Basch E; ISPOR ePRO Task Force. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009; 12:419–429.

5. World Health Organization. Tools and Methods for Health Measurement. Report of an Intercountry Workshop. New York: WHO;2003.

6. de Souza RF, Ahmadi M, Ribeiro AB, Emami E. Focusing on outcomes and methods in removable prosthodontics trials: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25:1137–1141.

7. Michaud PL, de Grandmont P, Feine JS, Emami E. Measuring patient-based outcomes: is treatment satisfaction associated with oral health-related quality of life? J Dent. 2012; 40:624–631.

8. Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, Locker D, Klemetti E, Chehade A, Savard A, Feine JS. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16:390–396.

9. Souza RF, Patrocínio L, Pero AC, Marra J, Compagnoni MA. Reliability and validation of a Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for assessing edentulous subjects. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34:821–826.

10. Kuroda S, Sugawara Y, Deguchi T, Kyung HM, Takano-Yamamoto T. Clinical use of miniscrew implants as orthodontic anchorage: success rates and postoperative discomfort. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131:9–15.

11. Cook AJ, Roberts DA, Henderson MD, Van Winkle LC, Chastain DC, Hamill-Ruth RJ. Electronic pain questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain. 2004; 110:310–317.

12. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008; 11:322–333.

13. Kleinman L, Leidy NK, Crawley J, Bonomi A, Schoenfeld P. A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Med Care. 2001; 39:181–189.

14. Pouwer F, Snoek FJ, van der Ploeg HM, Heine RJ, Brand AN. A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the Well-being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Qual Life Res. 1998; 7:33–38.

15. Skinner HA, Allen BA. Does the computer make a difference? Computerized versus face-to-face versus self-report assessment of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983; 51:267–275.

16. Swanston M, Abraham C, Macrae WA, Walker A, Rushmer R, Elder L, Methven H. Pain assessment with interactive computer animation. Pain. 1993; 53:347–351.

17. Health Statistics Division. Canadian Health Promotion Survey. Ottawa: Statistics Canada;1990.

18. Basker RM, Davenport JC, Tomlin HR. Prosthetic treatment for the edentulous patient. 3rd ed. London: McMillan;1992.

19. Awad MA, Feine JS. Measuring patient satisfaction with mandibular prostheses. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1998; 26:400–405.

20. Komagamine Y, Kanazawa M, Kaiba Y, Sato Y, Minakuchi S. Reliability and validity of a questionnaire for self-assessment of complete dentures. BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14:45.

21. Yoshida M, Sato Y, Akagawa Y, Hiasa K. Correlation between quality of life and denture satisfaction in elderly complete denture wearers. Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 14:77–80.

22. John MT, Patrick DL, Slade GD. The German version of the Oral Health Impact Profile-translation and psychometric properties. Eur J Oral Sci. 2002; 110:425–433.

23. Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997; 25:284–290.

24. Naik A, John MT, Kohli N, Self K, Flynn P. Validation of the English-language version of 5-item Oral Health Impact Profile. J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60:85–91.