title: Collection of patient-reported outcomes;--text messages on mobile phones provide valid scores and high response rates.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases have expressed a need for more frequent measurement of relevant outcomes, due to the variations in their symptoms during the day and from day to day. At present, patient-reported outcomes are extensively collected with questionnaires completed with pen and paper. However, as a measurement tool in frequent data collection the questionnaires are impractical. In contrast, text messages on mobile phones are suitable for frequent data collection. The aim of this study was two-fold; to compare daily registrations of patient-reported outcomes assessed with text-messages on mobile phones (SMS) or with questionnaires completed with pen and paper (P&P), with regard to scores and variation of scores, and to examine feasibility of the SMS method in a multicentre clinical study.
  
  
  METHODS
  To compare scores, 21 patients with an inflammatory, rheumatic disease performed daily assessments of pain, fatigue, stiffness and ability to carry out daily activities on a numeric rating scale (NRS). The patients were asked to assess the variables every other day with the SMS method and every other day with the P&P method for 28 consecutive days. In total each participant had to answer 14 P&P forms and 14 SMS messages. Mean scores and variation, expressed as the pooled standard deviation or as the average range between the maximum and minimum scores for the two methods, were compared using paired sample t-tests or Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. To examine feasibility, 36 patients with an inflammatory, rheumatic disease assessed the same four variables with SMS twice a week for 35 weeks. Feasibility of the SMS method was expressed as mean response-rate (%) in the total group and per centre.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mean scores, standard deviation of mean scores and mean range scores did not differ significantly between the two methods (p > 0.05). Response-rate with the SMS method was 97.9% for the whole group and for the three centres 97.1%, 98.3% and 98.4%, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Outcomes assessed on numeric rating scales and reported with text-messages on mobile phones or with questionnaires completed with pen and paper provide comparable scores. Further, the SMS method provided high response rates (> 97%) in a multicentre setting. Our results encourage the use of text messages on mobile phones in studies requiring frequent data collection and real-time assessment, as in fluctuating diseases such inflammatory, rheumatic diseases.
authors.affiliation: National resource center for rehabilitation in rheumatology - NKRR, Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, PO Box 23, Vinderen, 0319 Oslo, Norway. anne.christie@diakonsyk.no.
authors.forename: Anne
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Christie
authors.forename: Hanne
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Dagfinrud
authors.forename: Øystein
authors.initials: Ø
authors.lastname: Dale
authors.forename: Trenton
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Schulz
authors.forename: Kåre Birger
authors.initials: KB
authors.lastname: Hagen
mesh_terms: D003625:Data Collection / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D063868:Patient Outcome Assessment; D012216:Rheumatic Diseases / Q000188:drug therapy*; D057566:Self Report; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D060145:Text Messaging
references.citation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006 May 31;6:23
references.pmid: 16737535
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Sep;61(9):940-4
references.pmid: 18538992
references.citation: Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Apr 15;57(3):454-60
references.pmid: 17394232
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 2004 Dec;25(6):585-97
references.pmid: 15588745
references.citation: J Allied Health. 2004 Winter;33(4):230-7
references.pmid: 15656253
references.citation: Health Informatics J. 2011 Dec;17(4):266-76
references.pmid: 22193827
references.citation: Chiropr Osteopat. 2009 Nov 17;17:11
references.pmid: 19919715
references.citation: J Rheumatol. 1993 Mar;20(3):531-4
references.pmid: 8478865
references.citation: BMJ. 2002 May 18;324(7347):1193-4
references.pmid: 12016186
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2004 Dec 02;6(4):e42
references.pmid: 15631966
references.citation: Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Oct;64(10):1480-4
references.pmid: 15843456
references.citation: BMC Res Notes. 2010 Dec 20;3:342
references.pmid: 21172018
references.citation: J Rheumatol. 2005 Nov;32(11):2250-6
references.pmid: 16265712
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Apr;65(4):454-61
references.pmid: 22169083
references.citation: Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2012 May;38(2):327-43
references.pmid: 22819087
references.citation: Value Health. 2008 Mar-Apr;11(2):322-33
references.pmid: 18380645
references.citation: Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2011 May;23(3):252-8
references.pmid: 21427576
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):8-17
references.pmid: 17161749