CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 147Survey Methodology and NonresponseHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Education and Validation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: Validity, time benefits, and patient preference

Bliven, Brent D., Kaufman, Stanley E., Spertus, John A.·2001·Quality of Life Research
DOI 10.1023/a:1016740312904
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study sought to validate World Wide Web-compliant software tools used to collect health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data, relative to pencil-and-paper collection. The RAND-36 general health survey and the Seattle Angina questionnaire (SAQ), a disease-specific functional status measure for patients with coronary artery disease, were each administered in paper and electronic format to 55 consecutive patients visiting the cardiology outpatient clinic of a public hospital. All eight sub-scale scores of the RAND-36 (interclass correlation coefficient range = 0.54-0.75, p < 0.01) and all five domains of the SAQ (interclass correlation coefficient range = 0.84-0.90, p < 0.01) collected using the software were significantly correlated with those collected using the paper version of questionnaires. Computer literacy, educational level, age, sex, and race were not significantly associated with the ability to successfully complete the computer-assisted questionnaire. Eighty-two percent of patients preferred the computer-assisted administration to paper, and 89% reported that they would feel comfortable using the software in the future without any technical assistance. This pilot study suggests that HRQOL measures can be reliably collected using software operating over the World Wide Web. Data collected in this manner are valid and of comparable quality to self-reported, HRQOL data obtained via paper survey.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1016740312904

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measurements in clinical trials: Choosing the right approach. In: Spilker B (ed.), Quality of Life and Pharamcoeconomics in Clinical Trials, Philadelphia, PA: Lipincott-Raven, 1996.
  2. Anonymous. AMA launches physician accreditation program: Will AMAP become the gold standard? Health Care Business Digest 1988; 3: 35–43.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 147

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bliven, B. D., Kaufman, S. E., & Spertus, J. A.
Affiliations
University of Missouri–Kansas City (US)
Corresponding author
  • Bliven, Brent D.
  • Spertus, John A.
ORCID
Spertus, John A.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2001-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
15-21
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
DOI
10.1023/a:1016740312904
OpenAlex
W3347162
Cited by
146
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
16.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
health-related quality of life, electronic data collection, web-based questionnaire, RAND-36, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, coronary artery disease, questionnaire validity, computer literacy, patient preferences, time savings, self-reported outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Data Collection, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Reproducibility of Results, Linear Models, Logistic Models, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review