Journal of Korean Foot and Ankle Society (대한족부족관절학회지)

Korean Foot & Ankle Society (대한족부족관절학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Methods for Foot Function Index and Foot and Ankle Outcome Score Measurement: A Comparison between Paper-and-Pencil Method and Electronic Method

Foot Function Index와 Foot and Ankle Outcome Score의 기입방법 연구: 종이와 연필을 이용한 기입 방법과 전자기기를 이용한 두 가지 측정방법에 대한 일치도 비교

  • Kim, Ji-Beom (Seoul Foot and Ankle Center and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kwon, Min-Soo (Seoul Foot and Ankle Center and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Jung-Gon (Seoul Foot and Ankle Center and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yi, Young (Seoul Foot and Ankle Center and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Woo-Chun (Seoul Foot and Ankle Center and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Ha, Jeong-Ku (Seoul Foot and Ankle Center and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jang, Suk-Hwan (Seoul Foot and Ankle Center and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine)
  • 김지범 (인제대학교 의과대학 서울백병원 서울족부센터, 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 권민수 (인제대학교 의과대학 서울백병원 서울족부센터, 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 김정곤 (인제대학교 의과대학 서울백병원 서울족부센터, 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 이영 (인제대학교 의과대학 서울백병원 서울족부센터, 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 이우천 (인제대학교 의과대학 서울백병원 서울족부센터, 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 하정구 (인제대학교 의과대학 서울백병원 서울족부센터, 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 장석환 (인제대학교 의과대학 서울백병원 서울족부센터, 정형외과학교실)
  • Received : 2017.01.10
  • Accepted : 2017.02.05
  • Published : 2017.03.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is used to quantify the subjective state of patients before and after the treatment. The electronic method was recently developed and used for the completion of PROM, in addition to the conventional paper and pencil method. This study identified whether the results of Foot Function Index (FFI) and Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) using the paper and pencil method was different from those using the electronic method. Materials and Methods: Between May 2016 and August 2016, 42 patients who were admitted to the Seoul Foot and Ankle Center two days before surgery were included for evaluation. The mean age was 46 years (range, 21~72 years). There were 29 males and 13 females. To use the electronic method, the PADAS software (PADAS, Seoul, Korea) was implemented using a touch pad. The primary trial of FFI and FAOS was performed using either the paper-and-pencil method or the electronic method. At 24 hours after the primary test, a secondary trial of FFI and FAOS was performed using the other method. Then, we identified the reliability of FFI and FAOS between the two methods by calculating the intraclass coefficient. Results: Twenty-two patients underwent the first trial using the paper-and-pencil method, and 20 patients underwent the first trial using the electronic method. Of the 42 patients, 8 patients were excluded from this study and only 34 patients were included in this study. The reliability of FFI was excellent with an intraclass coefficient of 0.957, and the reliability of FAOS was also excellent with an intraclass coefficient of 0.840. Conclusion: The paper-and-pencil method and the electronic method have the same result for the completion of FFI and FAOS in this study. Therefore, it is commonly considered that the completion of FFI and FAOS using the electronic method can be applied in practice.

Keywords

References

  1. Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL, Abdul Nazir CP. Patientreported outcomes: a new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2:137-44. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.86879
  2. Button G, Pinney S. A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25:521-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070402500802
  3. Boyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J. The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23:508-18. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002524
  4. Lane SJ, Heddle NM, Arnold E, Walker I. A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006;6:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-6-23
  5. Hung M, Franklin JD, Hon SD, Cheng C, Conrad J, Saltzman CL. Time for a paradigm shift with computerized adaptive testing of general physical function outcomes measurements. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100713507905
  6. Gershon RC, Rothrock N, Hanrahan R, Bass M, Cella D. The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patientreported outcome measures in clinical research. J Appl Meas. 2010;11:304-14.
  7. Yaffe M, Goyal N, Kokmeyer D, Merrell GA. The use of an iPad to collect patient-reported functional outcome measures in hand surgery. Hand (N Y). 2015;10:522-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-014-9731-x
  8. Lee KM, Chung CY, Kwon SS, Sung KH, Lee SY, Won SH, et al. Transcultural adaptation and testing psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). Clin Rheumatol. 2013;32:1443-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-013-2288-1
  9. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 7th ed. Boston: Brooks/Cole; 2011.
  10. Budiman-Mak E, Conrad KJ, Roach KE. The foot function index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:561-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90220-4
  11. SooHoo NF, Samimi DB, Vyas RM, Botzler T. Evaluation of the validity of the Foot Function Index in measuring outcomes in patients with foot and ankle disorders. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:38-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070602700107
  12. Deyo RA, Andersson G, Bombardier C, Cherkin DC, Keller RB, Lee CK, et al. Outcome measures for studying patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(18 Suppl):2032S-6S. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199409151-00003
  13. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:593-600.

Cited by

  1. Comparison between an electronic version of the foot and ankle outcome score and the standard paper version : A randomized multicenter study vol.98, pp.40, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000017440
  2. 족부 족관절 질환 환자에서 전자식 족부 기능 지수의 인증: 임의 배정, 전향적, 다기관 연구 vol.23, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14193/jkfas.2019.23.1.24