Electronic versus paper patient-reported outcome measure compliance rates: A retrospective analysis.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are key tools used to inform clinical research and patient-centered care. Application of data collected from PROMs, however, may be limited by incomplete responses, and little is known regarding the efficacy of varied PROM delivery methods. The objective of this study was to compare PROMs compliance when delivered via paper and electronic formats. Elective adult spinal deformity patients were screened for inclusion. Data collected included demographics, type of surgery, PROMs compliance, and discharge care. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis (MVA) were performed to compare pre- and postoperative compliance rates. Of the 474 included patients, 177 were administered paper PROMs, while 297 were electronic. Preoperatively, 101 patients (57.1%) had any portion of their paper PROMs available; 179 (60.3%) had any of their electronic PROMs available (p = 0.492). Among all patients, 76 (42.9%) and 170 (57.2%) had all of their completed preop PROMs available (p = 0.003). Among patients with any of their preop PROMs completed, 75.2% with paper and 95.0% with electronic were completed in their entirety (p < 0.001). Similar trends were observed among postoperative PROMs. MVA demonstrated electronic delivery as the only significant correlate with pre- and post-operative PROMs compliance (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively). No differences were observed across modalities when considering any available PROMs, yet electronic PROM delivery was associated with higher completion of PROMs. In order to improve the quality of patient-reported data, electronic delivery with alternative methods of quality improvement may be considered to increase PROMs retention rates.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of Interest There are no relevant conflicts of interest related to this submission. Below are all potential conflicts of interest: Andrew Grossbach: Research funding from DePuy, Medtronic, 3 M/KCI; Consultation fees from 3 M/KCI. Stephanus Viljoen: Research funding from Medtronic. David Xu: Consultation fees from NuVasive.