Internet-administered Health-related Quality of Life Questionnaires Compared With Pen and Paper in an Adolescent Scoliosis Population: A Randomized Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modern technology puts into question the effectiveness of using pen and paper as a means of collecting information from web-enabled patients. This study aimed to validate and test the reliability of using the Internet as a method of administering health-related quality of life questionnaires in a pediatric spine population. METHODS: A prospective randomized crossover study was conducted. Patients aged 11 to 18 with idiopathic scoliosis were invited to participate, and informed consent was obtained from a scoliosis outpatient clinic setting. Participants were randomized to one of 4 groups determining the method of questionnaire administration [Scoliosis Research Society 30 (SRS-30) and Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI)]. Both questionnaires were completed at 2 separate timepoints and 2 weeks apart to prevent recall bias. Groups included: Paper/Paper, Paper/Internet, Internet/Paper, and Internet/Internet. Paired-samples t tests were used to determine the test-retest reliability of each group. Analysis was stratified for surveys returned within or outside of the allotted 4-week timeframe following enrollment. RESULTS: Of the 96 participants who completed and returned both sets of questionnaires, 26 were allocated to the Paper/Paper group (27%), 20 to the Paper/Internet group (21%), 26 to the Internet/Paper group (27%), and 24 to the Internet/Internet group (25%). The second iteration of questionnaires was returned on time by 69 of the participants (71.2%). Of the late questionnaires, 18 (67%) were paper forms. Overall, no differences were observed between Internet-administered compared with pen and paper-administered questionnaires (P=0.206). No differences were observed within any group individually for either the SRS-30 or PODCI questionnaire. In addition, no significant differences were observed within groups for surveys returned within or outside of the 4-week timeframe. Eighty-four percent of the participants who completed both paper and Internet versions of the questionnaires reported a preference of the Internet. CONCLUSION: Internet administration of both the SRS-30 and PODCI questionnaires is a valid and reliable method of acquiring health-related quality of life information in this population LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Level II-therapeutic study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".