Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of smartphone app-based digital patient reported outcomes in full-endoscopic spine surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools to assess patient function, pain, disability, and quality of life. We aim to study the efficiency and validity of digital PROMs collection using a smartphone app compared to traditional paper PROMs.

Methods

Patients undergoing evaluation for full-endoscopic spine surgery were recruited from the outpatient clinic at Harborview Medical Center. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and EQ5-5D PROMs were administered on paper and through a smartphone app called SpineHealthie. Compliance rates were collected, and PROM results were assessed for correlation between paper and digital methods.

Results

123 patients were enrolled. 57.7% of patients completed paper PROMs, 82.9% completed digital PROMs, and 48.8% completed both. Of the patients that completed both, Spearman’s correlation was greatest for VAS leg, ODI, and EQ5 index scores. Correlation was weaker for VAS back pain, neck pain, and upper extremity pain. Patients tended to report lower disability and higher quality of life on the digital PROM compared to the paper PROM.

Conclusion

The SpineHealthie app effectively and accurately collects PROMs digitally, showing strong concordance with traditional paper PROMs. We conclude that digital PROMs constitute a promising strategy for monitoring patients after spine surgery over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this manuscript.

Abbreviations

BMI:

Body mass index

NDI:

Neck disability index

ODI:

Oswestry disability index

PROM:

Patient reported outcome measures

VAS:

Visual analogue scale

EMR:

Electronic medical record

References

  1. McCormick JD, Werner BC, Shimer AL (2013) Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21:99–107. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-21-02-99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Finkelstein JA, Schwartz CE (2019) Patient-reported outcomes in spine surgery: past, current, and future directions: JNSPG 75th anniversary invited review article. J Neurosurg Spine 31:155–164. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.1.SPINE18770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E (2012) Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin 62:337–347. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schröder ML, de Wispelaere MP, Staartjes VE (2019) Are patient-reported outcome measures biased by method of follow-up? Evaluating paper-based and digital follow-up after lumbar fusion surgery. Spine J 19:65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S (2008) Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 11:322–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Prasse T, Yap N, Sivakanthan S et al (2023) Remote patient monitoring following full endoscopic spine surgery: feasibility and patient satisfaction. J Neurosurg Spine 1:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3171/2023.2.SPINE23136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB et al (2004) Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 22:714–724. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD et al (2009) 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 12:419–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Spigel Dd, De Marinis F, Giaccone GN et al (1990) EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fourney DR, Andersson G, Arnold PM et al (2011) Chronic low back pain: a heterogeneous condition with challenges for an evidence-based approach. Spine 36:S1–S9. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822f0a0d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ahn Y (2019) Endoscopic spine discectomy: indications and outcomes. Int Orthop (SICOT) 43:909–916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-04283-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wagner R, Haefner M (2021) Indications and contraindications of full-endoscopic interlaminar lumbar decompression. World Neurosurg 145:657–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.08.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Touvier M, Méjean C, Kesse-Guyot E et al (2010) Comparison between web-based and paper versions of a self-administered anthropometric questionnaire. Eur J Epidemiol 25:287–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9433-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Salaffi F, Gasparini S, Ciapetti A et al (2013) Usability of an innovative and interactive electronic system for collection of patient-reported data in axial spondyloarthritis: comparison with the traditional paper-administered format. Rheumatology (Oxford) 52:2062–2070. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ket276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Salaffi F, Gasparini S, Grassi W (2009) The use of computer touch-screen technology for the collection of patient-reported outcome data in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with standardized paper questionnaires. Clin Exp Rheumatol 27:459–468

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hollen PJ, Gralla RJ, Stewart JA et al (2013) Can a computerized format replace a paper form in PRO and HRQL evaluation? Psychometric testing of the computer-assisted LCSS instrument (eLCSS-QL). Support Care Cancer 21:165–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1507-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Abelson JS, Symer M, Peters A et al (2017) Mobile health apps and recovery after surgery: what are patients willing to do? Am J Surg 214:616–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.06.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Meirte J, Hellemans N, Anthonissen M et al (2020) Benefits and disadvantages of electronic patient-reported outcome measures: systematic review. JMIR Perioper Med 3:e15588. https://doi.org/10.2196/15588

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the assistance of Sharon Durfy, PhD, with manuscript editing and preparation. The research team would like to extend thanks to the Endoscopic Spine Research Group (ESRG).

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Ave, Box 359924, Seattle, WA, 98104, USA

    James Pan, Natalie Yap, Tobias Prasse & Christoph P. Hofstetter

  2. Department of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany

    Tobias Prasse

Authors
  1. James Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natalie Yap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tobias Prasse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christoph P. Hofstetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JP Conceptualization and design. NY Drafting the article, Stats analysis and Study supervision. TP Conceptualization and design, Acquisition of data and Analysis, interpretation of data, Stats analysis and Study supervision. CPH Acquisition of data and Analysis, interpretation of data, drafting the article, Critically revising the article and Stats analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph P. Hofstetter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Hofstetter is a consultant for Joimax, Globus. Medical, Innovasis, and Johnson & Johnson.

Ethics Approval

The University of Washington Human Subjects Division reviewed and approved this research study (IRB05864). Patients provided informed consent, appropriately compliant with institutional requirements, and conducted in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pan, J., Yap, N., Prasse, T. et al. Validation of smartphone app-based digital patient reported outcomes in full-endoscopic spine surgery. Eur Spine J 32, 2903–2909 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07819-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07819-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation