Measurement Equivalence and Feasibility of the Electronic and Paper Versions of the POSAS, EQ-5D, and DLQI: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are crucial within person-centered care. The use of electronic PROMs (ePROMs) is increasing and multiple advantages have been described. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is a validated paper questionnaire to assess patient-reported scar quality in the burn and scar population. In burn and scar rehabilitation, quality of life questionnaires such as the Euroqol 5 Dimensions 5 level (EQ-5D-5L) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) allow us to measure physical and psychosocial impact. The goal of this research was to compare the equivalence of the electronic versions of the POSAS, the EQ-5D-5L, and the DLQI with their original paper counterparts. To ensure the psychometric properties of the electronic versions, we assessed the equivalence of scores, the differences in completion time, and patients' preferred mode and ease of use. We used a randomized crossover design using a within-subject comparison of the formats of the questionnaires. Participants aged over 18 with a scar were recruited from an outpatient after-care and research center for burns and scars in Antwerp, Belgium. The equivalence of the electronic questionnaires POSAS, EQ-5D-5L, and DLQI is assumed based on the findings of this study. Completion times were faster for all the electronic versions but only statistically different (<i>p</i> = 0.002) for the electronic version of the EQ-5D-5L. The number of missing answers could be reduced to 0. The electronic assessment was preferred in >75% of the cases and subjects found it easy to use, and a tool that could improve the quality of care. Our findings support the electronic delivery of POSAS, EQ-5D, and DLQI, within the burn and scar population.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Burn Journal
Published
2024-10-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/ebj5040030
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Burn Injury Management and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.77
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Measurement Equivalence and Feasibility of the Electronic and Paper Versions of the POSAS, EQ-5D, and DLQI: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Peter Moortgat, Koen Maertens, Nick Hellemans, Mieke Anthonissen et al.
2 citations
European Burn Journal
Burn Injury Management and Outcomes
0.77
article

Measurement Equivalence and Feasibility of the Electronic and Paper Versions of the POSAS, EQ-5D, and DLQI: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Peter Moortgat, Koen Maertens, Nick Hellemans, Mieke Anthonissen, Lenie Denteneer, Jill Meirte, Ulrike Van Daele
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are crucial within person-centered care. The use of electronic PROMs (ePROMs) is increasing and multiple advantages have been described. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is a validated paper questionnaire to assess patient-reported scar quality in the burn and scar population. In burn and scar rehabilitation, quality of life questionnaires such as the Euroqol 5 Dimensions 5 level (EQ-5D-5L) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) allow us to measure physical and psychosocial impact. The goal of this research was to compare the equivalence of the electronic versions of the POSAS, the EQ-5D-5L, and the DLQI with their original paper counterparts. To ensure the psychometric properties of the electronic versions, we assessed the equivalence of scores, the differences in completion time, and patients' preferred mode and ease of use. We used a randomized crossover design using a within-subject comparison of the formats of the questionnaires. Participants aged over 18 with a scar were recruited from an outpatient after-care and research center for burns and scars in Antwerp, Belgium. The equivalence of the electronic questionnaires POSAS, EQ-5D-5L, and DLQI is assumed based on the findings of this study. Completion times were faster for all the electronic versions but only statistically different (<i>p</i> = 0.002) for the electronic version of the EQ-5D-5L. The number of missing answers could be reduced to 0. The electronic assessment was preferred in >75% of the cases and subjects found it easy to use, and a tool that could improve the quality of care. Our findings support the electronic delivery of POSAS, EQ-5D, and DLQI, within the burn and scar population.

European Burn JournalVol. 5(4)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE), University of Antwerp (BE), University of Aruba (AW)
Responsible consumption and production
Openalex Percentile: Top 25%
Burn Injury Management and Outcomes
0.77
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.