Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
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/openAccess2024-06-18T18:44:29Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/197025Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T22:46:17.926127Repositório 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_ |
1808129460961017856 |