Is There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?

dc.contributor.authorAzevedo, Bruna Rabelo [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorOliveira, Crystian B. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorAraujo, Giulia Marcondes D. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorSilva, Fernanda G. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorDamato, Tatiana M. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorPinto, Rafael Z. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorChristofaro, Diego G. D. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-10T20:03:52Z
dc.date.available2020-12-10T20:03:52Z
dc.date.issued2020-03-15
dc.description.abstractStudy Design. Cross-sectional study. Objective. To investigate the equivalence of electronic and paper version of self-report questionnaires for the assessment of disability, pain, fear of movement, depression, and physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Summary of Background Data. Paper and electronic versions of self-report questionnaires are commonly used for assessment of patients with LBP. However, the equivalence of self-report questionnaires commonly used for assessment of patients with chronic LBP remains unclear. Methods. Seventy-nine individuals with chronic LBP seeking physiotherapy care were recruited. Participants attended the clinic twice with an interval of 1 week and completed the self-reported questionnaires in a random order. The following questionnaires were administered: Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS); Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK); Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D), and Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire (BPAQ). To investigate the equivalence between the two questionnaire versions, intraclass correlation coefficient with 95% confidence interval and Bland-Altman plotting was used. Results. The paper and electronic versions of the RMDQ, TSK, and CES-D showed good reliability and the showed moderate reliability. In contrast, the NRS showed poor reliability between the electronic and paper versions. Conclusion. Our findings support that the electronic version of the RMDQ, TSK, CES-D, and BPAQ can be administered in clinical and research settings for assessment of patients with chronic LBP. Nevertheless, electronic version of the NRS for assessment of pain intensity should not be used interchangeably in clinical practice in patients with chronic LBP.en
dc.description.affiliationUniv Estadual Paulista, Dept Fisioterapia, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUniv Fed Minas Gerais UFMG, Dept Phys Therapy, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUniv Estadual Paulista, Dept Educ Fis, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnespUniv Estadual Paulista, Dept Fisioterapia, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnespUniv Estadual Paulista, Dept Educ Fis, Fac Ciencias & Tecnol, Presidente Prudente, Brazil
dc.description.sponsorshipFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: 2017/21336-8
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: 2016/03826-5
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: 2017/12246-5
dc.format.extentE329-E335
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003281
dc.identifier.citationSpine. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, v. 45, n. 6, p. E329-E335, 2020.
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/BRS.0000000000003281
dc.identifier.issn0362-2436
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/197025
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000544932100004
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins
dc.relation.ispartofSpine
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectelectronic
dc.subjectlow back pain
dc.subjectpaper
dc.subjectquestionnaire
dc.subjectscales
dc.titleIs There Equivalence Between the Electronic and Paper Version of the Questionnaires for Assessment of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain?en
dc.typeArtigo
dcterms.rightsHolderLippincott Williams & Wilkins

Arquivos