title: Feasibility and applicability of the paper and electronic COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) in primary care: a clinimetric study.
abstract: Three questionnaires are recommended in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease, of which two are the more comprehensive assessments: the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire. Both are carefully designed high-quality questionnaires, but information on the feasibility for routine use is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the time to complete the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and the acceptability of the questionnaires. Furthermore, the agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was explored. The time to complete the electronic versions of the questionnaires was 99.6 [IQR 74; 157] vs. 97.5 [IQR 68; 136] seconds for clinical clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test, respectively. The difference in time to complete the questionnaire was not significant. The two questionnaires did not differ in "easiness to complete" or "importance of issues raised in questionnaires". Electronic vs. paper versions revealed high agreement (ICC CCQ = 0.815 [0.712; 0.883] and ICC CAT = 0.751 [0.608; 0.847]) between the administration methods. Based on this study it can be concluded that both questionnaires are equally suitable for use in routine clinical practice, because they are both quick to complete and have a good acceptability by the patient. Agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was high, so use of electronic versions is justified.COPD: QUESTIONNAIRES EQUALLY SUITABLE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Two questionnaires commonly used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) are equally suitable for routine primary care. Researchers in The Netherlands, led by Janwillem Kocks from the University Medical Center Groningen, administered both the COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) to 95 patients with the lung disease. These two tests are the most comprehensive assessments recommended by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease for guiding treatment decisions. The researchers found that both tests took approximately 95-100 s on average. Both tests were also equally easy to complete and provided similar types of information. Most patients said they had no preference for either one, and they filled out both electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires in much the same way. The authors conclude that both tests seem fine for routine use.
authors.affiliation: Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.w.h.kocks@umcg.nl.|GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.w.h.kocks@umcg.nl.
authors.forename: J W H
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2760-0693
authors.initials: JWH
authors.lastname: Kocks
authors.affiliation: Zorgdraad Foundation, Oosterbeek, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: C M G
authors.initials: CMG
authors.lastname: Blom
authors.affiliation: Department of Public Health and Primary Care LUMC Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.|Department of Pulmonology, LUMC Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: M J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Kasteleyn
authors.affiliation: Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.|GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Oosterom
authors.affiliation: Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: B J
authors.initials: BJ
authors.lastname: Kollen
authors.affiliation: Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.|GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Van der Molen
authors.affiliation: Department of Public Health and Primary Care LUMC Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: N H
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8607-9199
authors.initials: NH
authors.lastname: Chavannes
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009426:Netherlands; D010342:Patient Acceptance of Health Care; D011320:Primary Health Care; D029424:Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive / Q000503:physiopathology*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013997:Time Factors