Abstract P4-10-11: Comparability of computerized and paper-pencil patient reported outcome (PRO) assessments – Does it matter how they are administered?
Authors: Palmer SC , DeMichele A , Glanz K , Schapira M , Pucci DA , Blauch AN , Jacobs LA 
Published: May 2016

Introduction:

There is an increased need to monitor and intervene to assist breast cancer (BC) survivors overcome the long-term and late effects of treatment. Many institutions are moving toward computerized assessments (CA) of PROs such as symptoms and concerns in place of more traditional paper and pencil administration, but little work has been performed to demonstrate that these very different methods of administration produce comparable results. Our goal was to evaluate the outcomes produced by these methods by comparing two similar samples of breast cancer survivors, one of which completed a PROs assessment using paper and pencil (PP), the other of which was assessed using a computerized system that links to the patient portal in use at our facility. Data collection of the CA of PROs is ongoing.

Method:

Women were eligible if they had a confirmed diagnosis of Stage 0-III BC, were within one year of completion of primary therapy, and were scheduled for a survivorship-focused end of treatment visit. As this was a naturalistic cohort study, no randomization was undertaken. The PRO assessment covered 19 common long-term or late effects of treatment, inquiring about their occurrence and severity in the previous month. On the day of the visit, participants in the PP cohort were provided with the questionnaire packet to complete prior to meeting with their provider. The women who completed the CA were either already enrolled in the patient portal or enrolled at the time of recruitment and sent an online version of the same questionnaire. Reminder calls and/or emails were sent to the CA participants to improve compliance.

Results:

164 BC survivors completed the PP questionnaire, and 62 women completed the CA. Racial make-up, marital status, and education, were similar between groups. Women in the PP group were older than those in the CA group (55.45 vs. 51.23 yrs, p &lt; 0/05) and those in the PP group were marginally more likely than those in the CA group to have been menopausal prior to treatment (50% vs. 35%, p = 0.05).

With respect to PROs, there were no significant differences between groups in either the proportion of women endorsing a given symptom/concern or in the mean severity rating for any symptom/concern. The five most commonly reported concerns did differ somewhat between groups, with PP reporting Fatigue, Insomnia, Hot Flashes, Aching Joints, and Memory Difficulties, respectively, and CA reporting Fatigue, Anxiety, Body Image Problems, Memory Difficulties, and a tie between Insomnia and Depression, respectively.

Conclusion:

The results of the PRO assessment can be assumed to be comparable whether the method of administration is either PP or computerized. Differences found between groups in the most commonly endorsed symptoms likely reflected differences in age and menopausal status.

Citation Format: Palmer SC, DeMichele A, Glanz K, Schapira M, Pucci DA, Blauch AN, Jacobs LA. Comparability of computerized and paper-pencil patient reported outcome (PRO) assessments – Does it matter how they are administered?. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-11.