Software version of Roland Morris Disability questionnaire for outcome assessment in low back pain

Digital Health for Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Digital health tools, including smartphone applications (apps), websites, and online search engines, are increasingly being utilized for health data collection and patient education. Studies have shown that these tools can help disseminate information widely and even help guide patients through acute surgical episodes. We aimed to search the literature to summarize available studies on using digital health tools for patients undergoing spine surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of PubMed MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, and Elsevier Scopus databases, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov up to March 11, 2022.

RESULTS

Forty-four full-text articles were included and qualitatively analyzed. Studies were broadly grouped into those that analyzed the quality of web-based materials for patients, the quality of YouTube videos for spine surgery, the development, feasibility, and implementation of mobile apps for patients, and randomized controlled trials for integrating mobile apps into perioperative care.

CONCLUSIONS

We presented a systematic review analyzing the current landscape of digital health for patients undergoing spine surgery. Internet patient education materials in searchable websites and YouTube videos are of poor quality, lacking in readability to the average patient and robustness of information needed for patients to make informed decisions about pursuing spine surgery. However, there lies promise in digital apps developed to guide patients through surgery and collect postoperative outcomes.

Electronic Data Capture Versus Conventional Data Collection Methods in Clinical Pain Studies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The most commonly used means to assess pain is by patient self-reported questionnaires. These questionnaires have traditionally been completed using paper-and-pencil, telephone, or in-person methods, which may limit the validity of the collected data. Electronic data capture methods represent a potential way to validly, reliably, and feasibly collect pain-related data from patients in both clinical and research settings.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare electronic and conventional pain-related data collection methods with respect to pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability between methods.

METHODS

We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from database inception until November 2019. We included all peer-reviewed studies that compared electronic (any modality) and conventional (paper-, telephone-, or in-person-based) data capture methods for patient-reported pain data on one of the following outcomes: pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability. We used random effects models to combine score equivalence data across studies that reported correlations or measures of agreement between electronic and conventional pain assessment methods.

RESULTS

A total of 53 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pain scores reported electronically were congruent with those reported using conventional modalities, with the majority of studies (36/44, 82%) that reported on pain scores demonstrating this relationship. The weighted summary correlation coefficient of pain score equivalence from our meta-analysis was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95). Studies on data completeness, patient- or provider-reported ease of use, and efficiency generally indicated that electronic data capture methods were equivalent or superior to conventional methods. Most (19/23, 83%) studies that directly surveyed patients reported that the electronic format was the preferred data collection method.

CONCLUSIONS

Electronic pain-related data capture methods are comparable with conventional methods in terms of score equivalence, data completeness, ease, efficiency, and acceptability and, if the appropriate psychometric evaluations are in place, are a feasible means to collect pain data in clinical and research settings.

Paper Versus Digital Data Collection Methods for Road Safety Observations: Comparative Efficiency Analysis of Cost, Timeliness, Reliability, and Results

BACKGROUND

Roadside observational studies play a fundamental role in designing evidence-informed strategies to address the pressing global health problem of road traffic injuries. Paper-based data collection has been the standard method for such studies, although digital methods are gaining popularity in all types of primary data collection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to understand the reliability, productivity, and efficiency of paper vs digital data collection based on three different road user behaviors: helmet use, seatbelt use, and speeding. It also aims to understand the cost and time efficiency of each method and to evaluate potential trade-offs among reliability, productivity, and efficiency.

METHODS

A total of 150 observational sessions were conducted simultaneously for each risk factor in Mumbai, India, across two rounds of data collection. We matched the simultaneous digital and paper observation periods by date, time, and location, and compared the reliability by subgroups and the productivity using Pearson correlations (r). We also conducted logistic regressions separately by method to understand how similar results of inferential analyses would be. The time to complete an observation and the time to obtain a complete dataset were also compared, as were the total costs in US dollars for fieldwork, data entry, management, and cleaning.

RESULTS

Productivity was higher in paper than digital methods in each round for each risk factor. However, the sample sizes across both methods provided a precision of 0.7 percentage points or smaller. The gap between digital and paper data collection productivity narrowed across rounds, with correlations improving from r=0.27-0.49 to 0.89-0.96. Reliability in risk factor proportions was between 0.61 and 0.99, improving between the two rounds for each risk factor. The results of the logistic regressions were also largely comparable between the two methods. Differences in regression results were largely attributable to small sample sizes in some variable levels or random error in variables where the prevalence of the outcome was similar among variable levels. Although data collectors were able to complete an observation using paper more quickly, the digital dataset was available approximately 9 days sooner. Although fixed costs were higher for digital data collection, variable costs were much lower, resulting in a 7.73% (US $3011/38,947) lower overall cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study did not face trade-offs among time efficiency, cost efficiency, statistical reliability, and descriptive comparability when deciding between digital and paper, as digital data collection proved equivalent or superior on these domains in the context of our project. As trade-offs among cost, timeliness, and comparability-and the relative importance of each-could be unique to every data collection project, researchers should carefully consider the questionnaire complexity, target sample size, implementation plan, cost and logistical constraints, and geographical contexts when making the decision between digital and paper.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Utilizing Mobile Phone-Based Programs for Rehabilitation After Lumbar Spinal Surgery: Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Rehabilitation is crucial for postoperative patients with low back pain (LBP). However, the implementation of traditional clinic-based programs is limited in developing countries, such as China, because of the maldistribution of medical resources. Mobile phone–based programs may be a potential substitute for those who have no access to traditional rehabilitation.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of mobile phone–based rehabilitation systems in patients who underwent lumbar spinal surgery.

Methods

Patients who accepted spinal surgeries were recruited and randomized into 2 groups of rehabilitation treatments: (1) a mobile phone–based eHealth (electronic health) program (EH) or (2) usual care treatment (UC). The primary outcomes were (1) function and pain status assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and (2) the visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were (1) general mental health and (2) quality of life (Likert scales, EuroQol-5 Dimension health questionnaire, and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey). All the patients were assessed preoperatively and then at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively.

Results

A total of 168 of the 863 eligible patients were included and randomized in this study. Our analysis showed that the improvement of primary outcomes in the EH group was superior to the UC group at 24 months postoperatively (ODI mean 7.02, SD 3.10, P<.05; VAS mean 7.59, SD 3.42, P<.05). No significant difference of primary outcomes was found at other time points.

A subgroup analysis showed that the improvements of the primary outcomes were more significant in those who completed 6 or more training sessions each week throughout the trial (the highest compliance group) compared with the UC group at 6 months (ODI mean 17.94, SD 5.24, P<.05; VAS mean 19.56, SD 5.27, P<.05), 12 months (ODI mean 13.39, SD 5.32, P<.05; VAS mean 14.35, SD 5.23, P<.05), and 24 months (ODI mean 18.80, SD 5.22, P<.05; VAS mean 21.56, SD 5.28, P<.05).

Conclusions

This research demonstrated that a mobile phone–based telerehabilitation system is effective in self-managed rehabilitation for postoperative patients with LBP. The effectiveness of eHealth was more evident in participants with higher compliance. Future research should focus on improving patients’ compliance.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-TRC-13003314; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=6245 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/766RAIDNc)

Transcultural adaptation and validation of Hindi version of Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

PURPOSE

To transculturally adapt the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale for Hindi-speaking population and examine its psychometric properties in patients with low back pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Hindi following international guidelines. Hindi version of the scale was completed by 120 patients with low back pain and 60 healthy controls. Patients with low back pain were also administered the Hindi-Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and Visual Analog Scale. Psychometric evaluation included test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminative validity. Exploratory factor analysis was carried out to determine the factor structure.

RESULTS

The factorial analysis revealed a four-factor solution (bending/carrying, ambulation/reach, prolonged postures and rest). Convergent validity was confirmed by high correlation of Hindi Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale to the Hindi version of Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (r = 0.77 and p < 0.001) as well as Visual Analog Scale (r = 0.682 and p < 0.001) scores. Discriminative validity was established by significantly different scores for patients with low back pain and the healthy controls (35.36 ± 18.6 vs. 9.13 ± 6.08 and p < 0.001). The translated version of the scale showed remarkable internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.98) and the intraclass correlation coefficient of test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC_2,1=0.96). MDC₉₅ and SEM scores obtained were 10.28 and 3.71, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The Hindi version of Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale has good test-retest reliability, discriminative and convergent validity and is appropriate for clinical and research use in Hindi-speaking low back pain patients. Implications for rehabilitation Linguistically and culturally adapted questionnaires help researchers make adequate inferences about instruments measuring health and quality of life. The translated version would serve as a valid research tool allowing comparability of data across cultures thus, providing opportunities for large multicenter, multicountry trials. A Hindi Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale version will help to improve the quality and efficacy of assessment of low back pain by developing in patients, a better understanding of the items which can be easily correlated with the activities of daily living.