Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Azevedo, Bruna Rabelo [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Oliveira, Crystian B. [UNESP], Araujo, Giulia Marcondes D. [UNESP], Silva, Fernanda G. [UNESP], Damato, Tatiana M. [UNESP], Pinto, Rafael Z. [UNESP], Christofaro, Diego G. D. [UNESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003281
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/197025
Resumo: Study Design. Cross-sectional study. Objective. To investigate the equivalence of electronic and paper version of self-report questionnaires for the assessment of disability, pain, fear of movement, depression, and physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Summary of Background Data. Paper and electronic versions of self-report questionnaires are commonly used for assessment of patients with LBP. However, the equivalence of self-report questionnaires commonly used for assessment of patients with chronic LBP remains unclear. Methods. Seventy-nine individuals with chronic LBP seeking physiotherapy care were recruited. Participants attended the clinic twice with an interval of 1 week and completed the self-reported questionnaires in a random order. The following questionnaires were administered: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS); Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK); Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D), and Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire (BPAQ). To investigate the equivalence between the two questionnaire versions, intraclass correlation coefficient with 95% confidence interval and Bland-Altman plotting was used. Results. The paper and electronic versions of the RMDQ, TSK, and CES-D showed good reliability and the showed moderate reliability. In contrast, the NRS showed poor reliability between the electronic and paper versions. Conclusion. Our findings support that the electronic version of the RMDQ, TSK, CES-D, and BPAQ can be administered in clinical and research settings for assessment of patients with chronic LBP. Nevertheless, electronic version of the NRS for assessment of pain intensity should not be used interchangeably in clinical practice in patients with chronic LBP.
id UNSP_3fb2cece1ab56f57fdb35825d3ce4b56
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/197025
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?electroniclow back painpaperquestionnairescalesStudy Design. Cross-sectional study. Objective. To investigate the equivalence of electronic and paper version of self-report questionnaires for the assessment of disability, pain, fear of movement, depression, and physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Summary of Background Data. Paper and electronic versions of self-report questionnaires are commonly used for assessment of patients with LBP. However, the equivalence of self-report questionnaires commonly used for assessment of patients with chronic LBP remains unclear. Methods. Seventy-nine individuals with chronic LBP seeking physiotherapy care were recruited. Participants attended the clinic twice with an interval of 1 week and completed the self-reported questionnaires in a random order. The following questionnaires were administered: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS); Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK); Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D), and Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire (BPAQ). To investigate the equivalence between the two questionnaire versions, intraclass correlation coefficient with 95% confidence interval and Bland-Altman plotting was used. Results. The paper and electronic versions of the RMDQ, TSK, and CES-D showed good reliability and the showed moderate reliability. In contrast, the NRS showed poor reliability between the electronic and paper versions. Conclusion. Our findings support that the electronic version of the RMDQ, TSK, CES-D, and BPAQ can be administered in clinical and research settings for assessment of patients with chronic LBP. Nevertheless, electronic version of the NRS for assessment of pain intensity should not be used interchangeably in clinical practice in patients with chronic LBP.Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Fisioterapia, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, BrazilUniv Fed Minas Gerais UFMG, Dept Phys Therapy, Belo Horizonte, MG, BrazilUniv Estadual Paulista, Dept Educ Fis, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, BrazilUniv Estadual Paulista, Dept Fisioterapia, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, BrazilUniv Estadual Paulista, Dept Educ Fis, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, BrazilFAPESP: 2017/21336-8FAPESP: 2016/03826-5FAPESP: 2017/12246-5Lippincott Williams & WilkinsUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)Azevedo, Bruna Rabelo [UNESP]Oliveira, Crystian B. [UNESP]Araujo, Giulia Marcondes D. [UNESP]Silva, Fernanda G. [UNESP]Damato, Tatiana M. [UNESP]Pinto, Rafael Z. [UNESP]Christofaro, Diego G. D. [UNESP]2020-12-10T20:03:52Z2020-12-10T20:03:52Z2020-03-15info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleE329-E335http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003281Spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, v. 45, n. 6, p. E329-E335, 2020.0362-2436http://hdl.handle.net/11449/19702510.1097/BRS.0000000000003281WOS:000544932100004Web of Sciencereponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengSpineinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2021-10-23T10:18:24Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/197025Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462021-10-23T10:18:24Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?
title Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?
spellingShingle Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?
Azevedo, Bruna Rabelo [UNESP]
electronic
low back pain
paper
questionnaire
scales
title_short Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?
title_full Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?
title_fullStr Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?
title_full_unstemmed Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?
title_sort Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?
author Azevedo, Bruna Rabelo [UNESP]
author_facet Azevedo, Bruna Rabelo [UNESP]
Oliveira, Crystian B. [UNESP]
Araujo, Giulia Marcondes D. [UNESP]
Silva, Fernanda G. [UNESP]
Damato, Tatiana M. [UNESP]
Pinto, Rafael Z. [UNESP]
Christofaro, Diego G. D. [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 Oliveira, Crystian B. [UNESP]
Araujo, Giulia Marcondes D. [UNESP]
Silva, Fernanda G. [UNESP]
Damato, Tatiana M. [UNESP]
Pinto, Rafael Z. [UNESP]
Christofaro, Diego G. D. [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Azevedo, Bruna Rabelo [UNESP]
Oliveira, Crystian B. [UNESP]
Araujo, Giulia Marcondes D. [UNESP]
Silva, Fernanda G. [UNESP]
Damato, Tatiana M. [UNESP]
Pinto, Rafael Z. [UNESP]
Christofaro, Diego G. D. [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv electronic
low back pain
paper
questionnaire
scales
topic electronic
low back pain
paper
questionnaire
scales
description Study Design. Cross-sectional study. Objective. To investigate the equivalence of electronic and paper version of self-report questionnaires for the assessment of disability, pain, fear of movement, depression, and physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Summary of Background Data. Paper and electronic versions of self-report questionnaires are commonly used for assessment of patients with LBP. However, the equivalence of self-report questionnaires commonly used for assessment of patients with chronic LBP remains unclear. Methods. Seventy-nine individuals with chronic LBP seeking physiotherapy care were recruited. Participants attended the clinic twice with an interval of 1 week and completed the self-reported questionnaires in a random order. The following questionnaires were administered: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS); Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK); Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D), and Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire (BPAQ). To investigate the equivalence between the two questionnaire versions, intraclass correlation coefficient with 95% confidence interval and Bland-Altman plotting was used. Results. The paper and electronic versions of the RMDQ, TSK, and CES-D showed good reliability and the showed moderate reliability. In contrast, the NRS showed poor reliability between the electronic and paper versions. Conclusion. Our findings support that the electronic version of the RMDQ, TSK, CES-D, and BPAQ can be administered in clinical and research settings for assessment of patients with chronic LBP. Nevertheless, electronic version of the NRS for assessment of pain intensity should not be used interchangeably in clinical practice in patients with chronic LBP.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-12-10T20:03:52Z
2020-12-10T20:03:52Z
2020-03-15
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003281
Spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, v. 45, n. 6, p. E329-E335, 2020.
0362-2436
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/197025
10.1097/BRS.0000000000003281
WOS:000544932100004
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003281
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/197025
identifier_str_mv Spine. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, v. 45, n. 6, p. E329-E335, 2020.
0362-2436
10.1097/BRS.0000000000003281
WOS:000544932100004
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Spine
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv E329-E335
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Web of Science
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1797790273895399424