Capturing patient-reported outcomes: paper versus electronic survey administration.

Area of Science:

• Orthopedic Surgery
• Health Informatics
• Patient Outcomes Research

Background:

• Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are crucial for assessing treatment effectiveness.
• Traditional paper-based PROs (pPRO) administered in-clinic face challenges with capture rates and costs.
• Electronic PROs (ePRO) offer a potential solution for more efficient data collection.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the capture rates and associated costs of paper PROs (pPRO) versus electronic PROs (ePRO).
• To evaluate the effectiveness of ePROs collected via email and text for postsurgical follow-up.
• To determine the optimal model for PRO data collection in orthopedic trauma.

Main Methods:

• Retrospective review of pPRO and ePRO programs at a Level 1 trauma center.
• Comparison of PRO capture rates across 4 fracture types at multiple time points (first follow-up, 6 months, 1 year).
• Cost analysis per enrolled patient for both pPRO and ePRO programs, with matched patient cohorts for ePRO.

Main Results:

• Initially, pPRO had higher capture rates for 3 of 4 fracture types; however, ePRO demonstrated significantly higher long-term capture rates at 6 months and 1 year.
• ePRO programs were substantially more cost-effective ($56/patient) compared to pPRO ($171/patient).
• Patients were 1.19 times more likely to complete ePRO compared to pPRO, even after controlling for demographic and clinical factors.

Conclusions:

• Electronic PRO services significantly improve long-term capture rates and reduce costs compared to paper-based methods.
• A hybrid model incorporating both in-clinic and remote (ePRO) data collection may represent the ideal strategy for comprehensive PRO assessment.
• ePRO implementation is a valuable advancement for postsurgical follow-up and patient outcome monitoring.