Journal List > J Korean Foot Ankle Soc > v.23(1) > 1130347

TOOLS
Lee, Kim, Lee, Kim, Kim, Kim, Choi, Seo, Kim, Park, Kim, Choi, Lee, Cho, Chun, Kim, and Park: Validation of Electronic Foot Function Index in Patients with Foot and Ankle Disease: A Randomized, Prospective Multicenter Study
Original Article

J Korean Foot Ankle Soc 2019;23(1):24-30.

Published online: 14 January 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14193/jkfas.2019.23.1.24

Validation of Electronic Foot Function Index in Patients with Foot and Ankle Disease: A Randomized, Prospective Multicenter Study

Dong Yeon Lee, Yu Mi Kim*, Jun Hyung Lee*, Jin Kim*, Ji-Beom Kim‡, Bom Soo Kim‡, Gi Won Choi§, Sang Gyo Seo∥, Jun Beom Kim, Se-Jin Park**, Yoon-Chung Kim††, Young Rak Choi‡‡, Dong-Oh Lee§§, Jae-Ho Cho∥∥, Dong-Il Chun¶¶, Hyong Nyun Kim***, Jae-Yong Park†††

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Gunpo, Korea

*Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Gunpo, Korea

†Seoul Foot and Ankle Center, Dubalo Orthopedic Clinic, Seoul, Korea

‡Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

§Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan, Korea

∥Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sun General Hospital, Daejeon, Korea

**Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

††Department of Orthopedic Surgery, St. Vincent’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea

‡‡Department of Orthopedic Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea

§§Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Myongji Hospital, Goyang, Korea

∥∥Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Chuncheon, Korea

¶¶Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Korea

***Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Seoul, Korea

†††Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Korea

Corresponding Author: Yu Mi Kim Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, 327 Sanbon-ro, Gunpo 15865, Korea Tel: 82-31-390-2224, Fax: 82-31-398-2223, E-mail: castkim@hanmail.net ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2693-6117

Received 24 January 2019       Revised 7 March 2019       Accepted 8 March 2019

Copyright © 2019 Korean Foot and Ankle Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose:

To evaluate the efficiency of the electronic foot function index (eFFI) through a prospective, random based, multi-institutional study.

Materials and Methods:

The study included 227 patients ranging in age from 20 to 79 years, visited for surgery in different 15 institutes, and agreed to volunteer. The patients were assigned randomly into a paper-based evaluated group (n=113) and tablet-based evaluated group (n=114). The evaluation was done on the day of hospital admission and the method was changed on the second day of surgery and re-evaluated. PADAS 2.0 (https://www.proscore.kr) was used as an electronic evaluation program.

Results:

There were no differences in age and sex in both groups. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) evaluation revealed an eFFI ICC of 0.924, showing that both results were similar. The evaluation time was shorter in the tablet-based group than the paper-based group (paper vs tablet, 3.7±3.8 vs 2.3±1.3 minutes). Thirty-nine patients (17.2%) preferred to use paper and 131 patients (57.7%) preferred the tablet. Fifty-seven patients (25.1%) found both ways to be acceptable.

Conclusion:

eFFI through tablet devices appears to be more constant than the paper-based program. In addition, it required a shorter amount of time and the patients tended to prefer the tablet-based program. Overall, tablet and cloud system can be beneficial to a clinical study.

Keywords: Questionnaire, Foot function index, Patient-reported outcome measures

REFERENCES

1.Gagnier JJ. Patient reported outcomes in orthopaedics. J Orthop Res. 2017. 35:2098–108.
crossref
2.Gwaltney CJ., Shields AL., Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008. 11:322–33.
crossref
3.Coons SJ., Gwaltney CJ., Hays RD., Lundy JJ., Sloan JA., Revicki DA, et al. ISPOR ePRO Task Force. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2009. 12:419–29.
crossref
4.Kim JB., Kwon MS., Kim JG., Yi Y., Lee WC., Ha JK, et al. The methods for foot function index and foot and ankle outcome score measurement: a comparison between paper-and-pencil method and electronic method. J Korean Foot Ankle Soc. 2017. 21:33–8.
crossref
5.In TS., Jung JH., Kim K., Jung KS., Cho HY. The reliability and validity of the Korean version of the foot function index for patients with foot complaints. J Phys Ther Sci. 2017. 29:53–6.
crossref
6.Budiman-Mak E., Conrad KJ., Roach KE. The foot function index: a measure of foot pain and disability. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991. 44:561–70.
crossref
10.Deyo RA., Andersson G., Bombardier C., Cherkin DC., Keller RB., Lee CK, et al. Outcome measures for studying patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994. 19(18 Suppl):2032S–2036S.
crossref
7.Yaffe M., Goyal N., Kokmeyer D., Merrell GA. The use of an iPad to collect patient-reported functional outcome measures in hand surgery. Hand (N Y). 2015. 10:522–8.
8.Ioannidis JP., Greenland S., Hlatky MA., Khoury MJ., Macleod MR., Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014. 383:166–75.
crossref
11.Zbrozek A., Hebert J., Gogates G., Thorell R., Dell C., Molsen E, et al. Validation of electronic systems to collect patient-reported outcome (PRO) data-recommendations for clinical trial teams: report of the ISPOR ePRO systems validation good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013. 16:480–9.
crossref
9.Dawson J., Fitzpatrick R., Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996. 78:593–600.
crossref

Figure 1.
Study design. PRO: patient-reported outcome, ePRO: electronic PRO, SD: standard deviation.
jkfas-23-24f1.tif
Appendix 1.
Foot function index test.
jkfas-23-24f2.tif
Table 1.
Assessment of E cient (ICC) Equivalence b by Intraclass Correla ation Coeff
ICC 95% confidence interval p-value
Foot function index 0.924 0.898∼0.944 <0.001
Table 2.
Comparison of Completion Time
Foot function index Completion time (min) p-value
Paper Tablet 3.7±3.8 2.3±1.3 <0.001

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

Table 3.
Which of the Paper and Tablet Questionnaire Methods Was Easier to Use?
Variable Paper Tablet No difference Total
Tablet-based evaluated group 27 (23.7) 55 (48.2) 32 (28.1) 114
Paper-based evaluated group 12 (10.6) 76 (67.3) 25 (22.1) 113
Total 39 (17.2) 131 (57.7) 57 (25.1) 227

Values are presented as number (%).

TOOLS
Similar articles