Dataset Information

Agreement between pre-exercise screening questionnaires completed online versus face-to-face.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate the levels of agreement between self-reported responses to the Adult Pre-exercise Screening System (APSS) questionnaire using online versus face-to-face (F2F) modalities.

Design

Convenience sample of adults completing a pre-exercise screening questionnaire using different modalities.

Methods

Adult volunteers (n = 94) were recruited to complete the APSS using both online and F2F modalities. Participants were provided a URL link to an online APSS questionnaire then followed-up the next day in a F2F interview. Objective health risk factors were also measured. Comparisons between responses were undertaken using kappa and correlation statistics to determine levels of agreement.

Results

The levels of agreement between online versus F2F responses for the seven compulsory Stage 1 questions (known diseases and signs and/or symptoms of disease) were >94% (kappa = 0.644-0.794). Response comparisons for Stage 2 questions on health risk factors were also generally high (>82% agreement) but there were larger differences between reported and measured risk factors in Stage 3.

Conclusions

Levels of agreement between the Stage 1 responses were substantial and support the use of this online option for pre-exercise screening. There were larger differences between self-reported and objectively measured health risk factors in Stages 2 and 3.

SUBMITTER: Norton L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6019396 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Agreement between pre-exercise screening questionnaires completed online versus face-to-face.

Norton Lynda L Thomas Jessica J Bevan Nadia N Norton Kevin K

PloS one 20180626 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate the levels of agreement between self-reported responses to the Adult Pre-exercise Screening System (APSS) questionnaire using online versus face-to-face (F2F) modalities.<h4>Design</h4>Convenience sample of adults completing a pre-exercise screening questionnaire using different modalities.<h4>Methods</h4>Adult volunteers (n = 94) were recruited to complete the APSS using both online and F2F modalities. Participants were provided a URL link to an online APSS que ...[more]

PMID: 29944718

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFrailty is associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality. Preoperative screening and management of persons with frailty improves postoperative outcomes. The Clinical Risk Analysis Index (RAI-C) is a validated provider-based screening tool for assessing frailty in presurgical populations. Patient self-screening for frailty may provide an alternative to provider-based screening if resources are limited; however, the agreement between these 2 methods has not been previously explored.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to examine provider-completed versus patient-completed RAI-C assessments to identify areas of disagreement between the 2 methods and inform best practices for RAI-C screening implementation.MethodsOrthopedic physicians and physician assistants completed the RAI-C assessment on veterans aged 65 years and older undergoing elective total joint arthroplasty (eg, total hip or knee arthroplasty) and documented scores into the electronic health record during their preoperative clinic evaluation. Participants were then mailed the same RAI-C form after preoperative evaluation and returned responses to study coordinators. Agreement between provider-completed and patient-completed RAI-C assessments and differences within individual domains were compared.ResultsA total of 49 participants aged 65 years and older presenting for total joint arthroplasty underwent RAI-C assessment between November 2022 and August 2023. In total, 41% (20/49) of participants completed and returned an independent postvisit RAI-C assessment before surgery and within 180 days of their initial evaluation. There was a moderate but statistically significant correlation between provider-completed and patient-completed RAI-C assessments (r=0.62; 95% CI 0.25-0.83; P=.003). Provider-completed and patient-completed RAI-C assessments resulted in the same frailty classification in 60% (12/20) of participants, but 40% (8/20) of participants were reclassified to a more frail category based on patient-completed assessment. Agreement was the lowest between provider-completed and patient-completed screening questions regarding memory and activities of daily living.ConclusionsRAI-C had moderate agreement when completed by providers versus the participants themselves, with more than a third of patient-completed screens resulting in a higher frailty classification. Future studies will need to explore the differences between and accuracy of RAI-C screening approaches to inform best practices for preoperative RAI-C assessment implementation.

Project description:BackgroundThe National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends the paper-based or computerized Alcohol Symptom Checklist to assess alcohol use disorder (AUD) symptoms in routine care when patients report high-risk drinking. However, it is unknown whether Alcohol Symptom Checklist response characteristics differ when it is administered online (eg, remotely via an online electronic health record [EHR] patient portal before an appointment) versus in clinic (eg, on paper after appointment check-in).ObjectiveThis study evaluated the psychometric performance of the Alcohol Symptom Checklist when completed online versus in clinic during routine clinical care.MethodsThis cross-sectional, psychometric study obtained EHR data from the Alcohol Symptom Checklist completed by adult patients from an integrated health system in Washington state. The sample included patients who had a primary care visit in 2021 at 1 of 32 primary care practices, were due for annual behavioral health screening, and reported high-risk drinking on the behavioral health screen (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption score ≥7). After screening, patients with high-risk drinking were typically asked to complete the Alcohol Symptom Checklist-an 11-item questionnaire on which patients self-report whether they had experienced each of the 11 AUD criteria listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) over a past-year timeframe. Patients could complete the Alcohol Symptom Checklist online (eg, on a computer, smartphone, or tablet from any location) or in clinic (eg, on paper as part of the rooming process at clinical appointments). We examined sample and measurement characteristics and conducted differential item functioning analyses using item response theory to examine measurement consistency across these 2 assessment modalities.ResultsAmong 3243 patients meeting eligibility criteria for this secondary analysis (2313/3243, 71% male; 2271/3243, 70% White; and 2014/3243, 62% non-Hispanic), 1640 (51%) completed the Alcohol Symptom Checklist online while 1603 (49%) completed it in clinic. Approximately 46% (752/1640) and 48% (764/1603) reported ≥2 AUD criteria (the threshold for AUD diagnosis) online and in clinic (P=.37), respectively. A small degree of differential item functioning was observed for 4 of 11 items. This differential item functioning produced only minimal impact on total scores used clinically to assess AUD severity, affecting total criteria count by a maximum of 0.13 criteria (on a scale ranging from 0 to 11).ConclusionsCompleting the Alcohol Symptom Checklist online, typically prior to patient check-in, performed similarly to an in-clinic modality typically administered on paper by a medical assistant at the time of the appointment. Findings have implications for using online AUD symptom assessments to streamline workflows, reduce staff burden, reduce stigma, and potentially assess patients who do not receive in-person care. Whether modality of DSM-5 assessment of AUD differentially impacts treatment is unknown.

Project description:BackgroundOnline video consultation (OVC) is increasingly used in patient-surgeon pre-surgical and follow-up consultation but a comprehensive review assessing its benefits and downsides as compared to face-to-face (F2F) consultation is currently lacking. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of OVC as compared to F2F consultation.MethodsA literature search (Ovid/Medline, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection) was conducted including studies comparing efficacy, patient and surgeon satisfaction, and information recall between OVC and F2F patient-surgeon consultation (inception-December 4, 2023).ResultsOut of 1021 studies, 14 studies with 13,564 patients met the eligibility criteria, consisting of seven RCTs, three prospective, and four retrospective studies. Various types of surgical consultations were evaluated, including new referrals, routine follow-ups, postoperative follow-ups, and mixed consultations (both pre- and postoperative). None of the randomized trials exclusively compared OVC with F2F consultations in the high-demand preoperative setting, or assessed patient information recall. Efficacy outcomes were reported by seven studies. Among these, three RCTs showed that OVC improved efficacy in terms of waiting time (8.2 vs. 20.7 min, P = 0.01) and total appointment time (24 vs 71 min, P = 0.001, and 21.9 vs. 154.8 min, P = 0.001). Patient satisfaction was reported by 10 studies. Regarding patient satisfaction, one "mixed design" study favoured OVC (92% vs. 63%, P = 0.04), while eight studies reported similar outcomes.ConclusionsThis systematic review identified some benefits of OVC such as shorter waiting and total appointment times as compared to F2F patient-surgeon consultation, although the true value of OVC remains unknown due to the limited available evidence. Future pragmatic RCTs are needed, which should include the pre-surgical consultation and assess patient information recall.

Project description:IntroductionHealth state valuation studies using composite time trade-off (cTTO) interviews have historically been conducted face-to-face. The COVID-19 pandemic forced disruptive innovation meaning a number of valuation studies conducted interviews via videoconference. These studies found online interviews feasible and acceptable; however, studies were not constructed to test the impact of online versus face-to-face interviews. This study builds on its sister study from the UK and aims to assess the acceptability and equivalence of in person face-to-face interviews with online interviews on cTTO valuation outcomes and on data quality.MethodsParticipants were recruited into a randomised equivalence study via an external research company. Consenting participants were randomly allocated to complete a cTTO interview face-to-face or online, using the same 10 EQ-5D-5L health states. Mean and distribution of the cTTO values, participant understanding, data quality, demographic characteristics, participant preference, participant engagement and participant feedback were all compared across interview mode. Statistical equivalence for cTTO values for each state was tested using two one-sided t-tests by mode. Finally, regression analysis was completed to assess the impacts of interview mode on cTTO value while controlling for demographic characteristics of the participants.ResultsMean cTTO values were shown to be equivalent for mild health states and showed no significant difference for serious health states. The proportion of individuals who expressed an interest in the study but declined to arrange an interview after finding out their randomisation was significantly higher for the face-to-face (21.6%) than the online group (1.8%). No significant difference was found between groups for participant engagement, understanding or feedback nor for any indicators of data quality.ConclusionAdministrating interviews face to face or online did not appear to have a statistically significant impact on mean cTTO values. Offering both online and face-to-face interviews routinely allows all participants to select the most convenient option.

Project description:BackgroundHigh participant retention enhances the validity of clinical trials. A monetary incentive can increase retention, but it is not known if when it is provided and if it is conditional matters. We aimed to determine whether there was a difference in the number of follow-up trial questionnaires returned when a monetary (gift voucher) incentive was given to participants at recruitment (non-conditional), compared to informing participants at recruitment that the incentive would be given only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned (conditional).MethodA cluster randomised study within a trial embedded within the Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness, An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE (ALIC4E) Trial. Matched site pairs (GP practices) were randomised using computer-generated random numbers, to either a non-conditional or conditional monetary voucher incentive (only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned. Sites were matched on previous recruitment levels and practice list size. Analyses were conducted according to randomised groups irrespective of compliance with a two-sided 5% level statistical significance level. The main analysis of the primary outcome (site proportion of diaries returned) was linear regression accounting for site pair (using cluster-robust variance). Additional weighted, paired and non-parametric sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were the site average number of completed pages, time to return diary, and cost related to the incentive (administration and postage).ResultsOf the 42 randomised sites (21 for each intervention), only 28 recruited at least one participant with only 10 practice pairs recruiting participants at both constituent sites. Raw diaries return proportions were 0.58 (127/220) and 0.73 (91/125) for non-conditional and conditional incentive groups. Regression analysis adjusted for site pair showed no significant difference in returns, - 0.09, (95% CI, - 0.29, 0.10, p = 0.34); when weighted, there was still no clear difference: 0.15 (95% CI, - 0.02, 0.31, p = 0.07). There was no clear statistical evidence of a difference in time taken to return questionnaires, nor the proportion of pages completed, by the intervention group in the main analyses (all p > 0.05). The conditional incentive was approximately £23 cheaper per diary returned based upon observed data.ConclusionThere was no clear evidence of a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participant-completed diaries returned between conditional or non-conditional incentive groups. The time to questionnaire return and completeness of the returned questionnaires were similar in both groups. There was substantial statistical uncertainty in the findings. Some of the sensitivity analyses suggested that a meaningful benefit of a conditional incentive of a magnitude that would be meaningful was plausible. The conditional approach costs less in cash terms.

Dataset Information

Agreement between pre-exercise screening questionnaires completed online versus face-to-face.

Objectives

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Agreement between pre-exercise screening questionnaires completed online versus face-to-face.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets