Electronic visual analogue scales for pain,fatigue,anxiety and quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis using smartphone and tablet: a reliability and feasibility study

Abstract

Objective:

To explore the reliability and feasibility of electronic visual analogue scales in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthy individuals.

Design:

Cross-sectional observational study

Setting:

Clinical setting

Subjects:

Convenience sample of 52 people with MS and 52 matched healthy controls

Interventions:

Main measures:

Participants scored 15 statements assessing fatigue, pain, anxiety and quality of life on an electronic visual analogue scale (eVAS), either using a smartphone or a tablet (randomly allocated). To check for test-retest reliability, statements were administered in two separate randomly ordered groups. Subjects completed a feasibility questionnaire.

Results:

Mean (SD) eVAS scores ranged from 35 (28.1) to 80 (22.1) in MS group, and from 57 (28.0) to 86 (13.2) in controls. Intra Class Correlations ranged from 0.73 to 0.95 in MS sample; 0.61 to 0.92 in controls. For most statements, Bland-Altman plots indicated no systematic error, but relatively large random error of the eVAS scores (exceeding 20mm). Considerable ceiling effects (i.e. better health) were found in healthy controls. Similar reliability was found among smartphone or tablet, different demographic groups and the experience-groups.

Conclusion:

Electronic visual analogue scales are reliable and useful for people with MS to register fatigue, pain, anxiety and quality of life.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis electronic visual analogue scale eVAS reliability usability feasibility electronic assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Frohman

Castro

Shah

Courtney

Ortstadt

Davis

et al . Symptomatic therapy in multiple sclerosis. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord 2011; 4:83–98.

Elbers

Rietberg

van Wegen

EEH

Verhoef

Kramer

Terwee

et al . Self-report fatigue questionnaires in multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and stroke: a systematic review of measurement properties. Qual. life Res 2012; 21:925–944.

Wewers

Lowe

NK.

A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res. Nurs. Health 1990; 13:227–236.

Williamson

Hoggart

Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J. Clin. Nurs 2005; 14:798–804.

Hjermstad

Fayers

Haugen

Caraceni

Hanks

Loge

et al . Studies Comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for Assessment of Pain Intensity in Adults: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Pain Symptom Manage 2011; 41:1073–1093.

Lober

Flowers

JL.

Consumer empowerment in health care amid the internet and social media. Semin. Oncol. Nurs 2011; 27:169–182.

Mosa

ASM

Yoo

Sheets

A systematic review of healthcare applications for smartphones. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2012; 12:67.

Sarkar

Misra

From Micro to Nano: The Evolution of Wireless Sensor-Based Health Care. IEEE Pulse 2016; 7:21–25.

Marcano Belisario

Jamsek

Huckvale

O’Donoghue

Morrison

Car

. Comparison of self-administered survey questionnaire responses collected using mobile apps versus other methods. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev, 2015; 7. Art. No.: MR000042. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000042.pub2.

10.

de Vet

Terwee

Mokkink

Knol

. Measurement in medicine. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

11.

Polman

Reingold

Edan

Filippi

Hartung

Kappos

Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “‘McDonald Criteria.’”

Ann. Neurol 2005; 58:840–846.

12.

Kos

Nagels

D’Hooghe

Duportail

Kerckhofs

A rapid screening tool for fatigue impact in multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol 2006; 6:27.

13.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Available from: http://www.nihpromis.org (accessed July 2015)

14.

Patten

Burton

Fiest

Wiebe

Bulloch

Koch

et al . Validity of four screening scales for major depression in MS. Mult. Scler 2015; 21(8): 1064–1071

15.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics . International standard classification of education: ISCED 2011. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2012.

16.

Altman

Practical statistics for medical research London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.

17.

Bland

Altman

DG.

Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med. Res 1999; 8:135–160.

18.

Bland

Giavarina

Lessons in biostatistics 2015; 25:141–151.

19.

Williams

VSL

Morlock

Feltner

Psychometric evaluation of a visual analog scale for the assessment of anxiety. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2010; 8:57.

20.

Knutsson

Samuelson

Hagell

Stability of rating scale response category interpretations in neurological disorders. Acta Neurol. Scand 2013; 128:265–272.

21.

Pickard

Neary

Cella

Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2007; 5:70.

22.

Dewitte

Fierens

Stöckl

Thienpont

LM.

Application of the Bland-Altman plot for interpretation of method-comparison studies: A critical investigation of its practice. Clin. Chem 2002; 48:799–801.

23.

Martínez

Del Río

Riu

Rius

FX.

Detecting proportional and constant bias in method comparison studies by using linear regression with errors in both axes. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst 1999; 49:179–193.

24.

Altman

Bland

JM.

Measurement in Medicine: the Analysis of Method Comparison Studies. Statistician 1983; 32:307–317.

25.

Sindhu

Shechtman

Tuckey

Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of a digital version of the visual analog scale. J. Hand Ther. Hanley & Belfus; 2011; 24:356–364.

26.

Adamchic

Langguth

Hauptmann

Tass

PA.

Psychometric evaluation of visual analog scale for the assessment of chronic tinnitus. Am. J. Audiol 2012; 21:215–225.

27.

Edelaar-Peeters

Stiggelbout

AM.

Anticipated adaptation or scale recalibration? Health Qual. Life Outcomes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; 2013; 11:171.

28.

Jensen

Chen

Brugger

AM.

Interpretation of visual analog scale ratings and change scores: A reanalysis of two clinical trials of postoperative pain. J. Pain 2003; 4:407–414.

29.

De Boer

AGEM

Van Lanschot

JJB

Stalmeier

PFM

Van Sandick

Hulscher

JBF

De Haes

JCJM

et al . Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Qual. Life Res 2004; 13:311–320.

30.

Bernhard

Sullivan

Hürny

Coates

a S

Rudenstam

CM.

Clinical relevance of single item quality of life indicators in cancer clinical trials. Br. J. Cancer 2001; 84:1156–1165.

31.

Zampelis

Ornstein

Franzén

Atroshi

A simple visual analog scale for pain is as responsive as the WOMAC, the SF-36, and the EQ-5D in measuring outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2014; 85:128–132.

32.

Paul-Dauphin

Guillemin

Virion

Briançon

Bias and precision in visual analogue scales: a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Epidemiol 1999; 150:1117–1127.

33.

Zajacova

Dowd

JB.

Reliability of self-rated health in US Adults. Am. J. Epidemiol 2011; 174:977–983.

34.

Crossley

Kennedy

The reliability of self-assessed health status. J. Health Econ 2002; 21:643–658.

35.

Haase

Schultheiss

Kempcke

Thomas

Ziemssen

Use and Acceptance of Electronic Communication by Patients With Multiple Sclerosis A Multicenter Questionnaire Study. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14:e135.

36.

Bird

M-L

Callisaya

Cannell

Gibbons

Smith

Ahuja

KDK

. Accuracy, Validity, and Reliability of an Electronic Visual Analog Scale for Pain on a Touch Screen Tablet in Healthy Older Adults: A Clinical Trial. Interact. J. Med. Res 2016; 5:13–20.