Evaluating the Usability and Equivalence of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Individuals with a Lower-Limb Amputation

IntroductionElectronic versions of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) seem to have a clear administrative logging advantage to traditional paper versions. However, most of them have not been formally evaluated for their suitability to replace paper outcome measures for assessment of individuals with lower-limb amputations. The aim of this study is to examine the usability and equivalence of electronic to paper versions of PROMs suitable for use in prosthetic clinical care and research for persons with lower-limb loss.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, 10 participants remotely completed the following PROMs online and then on paper: Orthotic and Prosthetic User Survey (OPUS), Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (MFES), Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and Community Participation Indicators (CPI). Participants also answered open-ended and standardized questions regarding the usability of the electronic surveys. Wilcoxon signed rank tests, comparisons to minimum detectable change, intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate differences between the two survey versions, meaningful changes in scores, reliability, and systematic biases, respectively.ResultsElectronic surveys had fewer missing or ambiguous responses than paper surveys; however, the PEQ Social Burdens subscale could not be evaluated due to error in the creation of the electronic survey. No significant differences were found between scores of the two versions for any of the measures, but multiple participants had meaningful changes in the Appearance and Sounds PEQ subscales. All measures demonstrated acceptable reliability between versions, except the Appearance, Perceived Response, and Sounds subscales of the PEQ. No systematic biases in scores or usability concerns were found for any measures.ConclusionsThis study analysis showed that most of the electronic PROMs studied are easily used and demonstrate equivalence to the paper versions. However, the PEQ Appearance, Perceived Response, Sounds, and Social Burden subscales require further evaluation.Clinical RelevanceExcept for the PEQ, electronic versions of the PROMs in this study can likely be used interchangeably with paper versions among individuals with lower-limb loss.