Patient-reported Outcome in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Comparison of Web-based Versus Paper-completed Questionnaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients followed in observational cohorts often complete patient-reported outcomes on paper questionnaires. With advances in technology, Web-based (WB) formats have been developed. The aims of our study were to determine whether WB and paper-based questionnaires (PB) completed by patients followed in the psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinic are comparable; whether there is a patient preference for one method or the other; and whether any preference is related to patient characteristics. METHODS: Consecutive patients followed at the PsA clinic completed the Health Assessment Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, fatigue scale, Dermatology Life Quality Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life Instrument, and EQ-5D both on paper (PB) and on computer by Internet (WB). Patients were also asked to complete questionnaires regarding their preference for one method or the other. Descriptive statistics and interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. RESULTS: Of 110 patients who agreed to participate, 67 (57.3%) successfully completed both PB and WB questionnaires. These patients did not differ from those who did not complete the questionnaires. WB and PB questionnaires took the same length of time to complete, with 20% of the patients complaining of more pain following completion of the questionnaires, more so with the PB. There was excellent agreement between the PB and WB (ICC 0.89-0.97) for all questionnaires. CONCLUSION: The PB and WB versions of 10 standardized self-administered questionnaires in patients with PsA were comparable. The WB format was well accepted by PsA outpatients. Patients may thus be offered a choice of format as well as the choice to complete the questionnaires either in the clinic or remotely by Internet.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".