The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Caetano, Thais Angelina (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthetics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo) ;
  • Ribeiro, Adriana Barbosa (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthetics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo) ;
  • Vecchia, Maria Paula Della (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthetics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo) ;
  • Cunha, Tatiana Ramirez (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthetics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo) ;
  • Chaves, Carolina de Andrade Lima (Faculty of Dentistry, University of Ribeirao Preto) ;
  • de Souza, Raphael Freitas (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthetics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirao Preto, University of Sao Paulo)
  • Received : 2016.04.07
  • Accepted : 2016.10.11
  • Published : 2016.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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 ${\alpha}=0.86$ 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.

Keywords

References

  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;83:661-9.
  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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2002.00003.x
  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;12:419-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.x
  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;25:1137-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12254
  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;40:624-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.007
  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;16:390-6.
  9. Souza RF, Patrocinio 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;34:821-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01749.x
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.032
  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;110:310-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2004.04.012
  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;11:322-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x
  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;39:181-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200102000-00008
  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;7:33-8.
  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;51:267-75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.2.267
  16. Swanston M, Abraham C, Macrae WA, Walker A, Rushmer R, Elder L, Methven H. Pain assessment with interactive computer animation. Pain 1993;53:347-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(93)90231-D
  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;26:400-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1998.tb01978.x
  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. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-45
  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;110:425-33. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2002.21363.x
  23. Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25:284-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2015.12.003

Cited by

  1. Single-implant overdentures retained by the Novaloc attachment system: study protocol for a mixed-methods randomized cross-over trial vol.19, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2606-7