VALIDATION OF A COMPUTER-BASED SYSTEM FOR THE COLLECTION OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN PEDIATRIC SPORTS MEDICINE
Authors: Sabatino Meagan J. , Gans Catherine V. , Zynda Aaron J. , Jo Chan-Hee , Chung Jane , Miller Shane M. , Wilson Philip L. , Ellis Henry B. 
Published: March 2019

Background: In orthopedics, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become popularized due to an increase in patient-centered research and pay for performance reimbursement models. Most pediatric PROMs have been utilized and validated in paper format. However, the use of a computer-based system may improve patient and physician efficiency, decrease cost, ensure completion, provide instantaneous information, and minimize inconvenience. The purpose of the study is to validate the use, evaluate patient satisfaction, and review differences of electronic compared to paper PROMs in a pediatric sports medicine practice. Methods: New patients between 12 – 19 years of age with a knee-related primary complaint were identified prior to their appointment. Patients were then randomized into two groups to complete standard clinical PROMs; including the Pedi-IKDC, HSS Pedi-FABS, Tegner Activity Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and PedsQL-Teen. Group 1 completed paper forms followed by electronic, while Group 2 received the electronic format followed by paper, with a 10-minute break between formats in each group. Following the completion of PROMs, subjects completed a satisfaction survey. A Pearson’s correlation was used to calculate the association between the measures and a paired t-test to compare means between electronic and paper forms. Reliability analysis was conducted using an ICC calculation. Results: 87 subjects were enrolled with one excluded due to incomplete PROMs, for a total of 86. 54 subjects were female and 32 were male with an average age of 14.3 years (range 12-18). A high degree of reliability was found when comparing the paper and electronic versions of the Pedi-IKDC, HSS Pedi-FABS, PedsQL 13-18 and the Tegner activity scale (Figure 1). Differences were noted between the VAS scores, with paper scores being significantly higher than electronic (5.3 vs 4.6, p<0.001). Excluding the 10-minute break, it took subjects an average of 21.3 minutes to complete the PROMs. Although not significant, electronic PROMs took less time than paper on average (10.0 min vs 11.2 min, p=0.096). All subjects endorsed that PROMs captured on paper were the same as electronic with 69.8% of subjects preferring the electronic PROMs. 67.4% of subjects reported they felt the electronic format was faster, with only 5.8% of patients reporting the electronic forms were hard or confusing. 93.0% stated they would complete forms at home prior to appointments if it were an option and 91.8% were not concerned about the safety/privacy of electronic forms. Conclusion/Significance: PROMs captured electronically were reliable and valid when compared to paper, with differences noted only on the VAS. Electronic PROMs may be quicker, will not require manual scoring, and are preferred by patients. Electronic PROMs will improve the clinician’s ability to collect complete and validated data while reducing the burden on the clinical staff and patients. [Figure: see text]