Abstract
BackgroundThe aims of the current study were: a) to quantitatively compare data obtained by Short Message Service (SMS) with data from a telephone interview, b) to investigate whether the respondents had found it acceptable to answer the weekly two SMS questions, c) to explore whether an additional weekly third SMS question would have been acceptable, and d) to calculate the total cost of using the SMS technology.MethodsSMS technology was used each week for 53 weeks to monitor 260 patients with low back pain (LBP) in a clinical study. Each week, these patients were asked the same two questions: "How many days in the past week have you had problems due to LBP?" and "How many days in the past week have you been off work due to LBP problems?" The last 31 patients were also contacted by telephone 53 weeks after recruitment and asked to recall the number of days with LBP problems and days off work for the a) past week, b) past month, and c) past year. The two sets of answers to the same questions for these patients were compared. Patients were also asked whether a third SMS question would have been acceptable. The test-retest reliability was compared for 1-week, 1-month, and 1-year. Bland-Altman limits of agreement were calculated. The two quantitative questions were reported as percentages. Actual costs for the SMS-Track-Questionnaire (SMS-T-Q) were compared with estimated costs for paper version surveys.ResultsThere was high agreement between telephone interview and SMS-T-Q responses for the 1-week and 1-month recall. In contrast, the 1-year recall showed very low agreement. A third SMS question would have been acceptable. The SMS system was considerably less costly than a paper-based survey, beyond a certain threshold number of questionnaires.ConclusionSMS-T-Q appears to be a cheaper and better method to collect reliable LBP data than paper-based surveys.
Highlights
The aims of the current study were: a) to quantitatively compare data obtained by Short Message Service (SMS) with data from a telephone interview, b) to investigate whether the respondents had found it acceptable to answer the weekly two SMS questions, c) to explore whether an additional weekly third SMS question would have been acceptable, and d) to calculate the total cost of using the SMS technology
To be included in the study, the patients had to have been diagnosed as having low back pain (LBP), where back pain dominated over any leg pain
Questions and comparisons of interest Comparisons were made between the answers to two quantitative questions asked using the two different data collection methods, the SMS-T-Q and telephone interview. These questions were "How many days in the past week have you had problems due to LBP?" and "How many days in the past week have you been off work due to LBP problems?" 'Problems due to LBP, as it is used in our study, has a similar conceptual basis as 'bothersomeness' explained by Dunn and Croft [10]
Summary
The aims of the current study were: a) to quantitatively compare data obtained by Short Message Service (SMS) with data from a telephone interview, b) to investigate whether the respondents had found it acceptable to answer the weekly two SMS questions, c) to explore whether an additional weekly third SMS question would have been acceptable, and d) to calculate the total cost of using the SMS technology. Different methods of data collection The quality of clinical research depends to a large degree on the veracity of data obtained directly from patients. There are various methods that can be used to collect data, such as personal interview, observation, and questionnaires. Most data are collected with a Questionnaires Questionnaires are useful when studying a large number of people and they have several advantages. In relation to the respondents, no prior arrangements are needed, and questionnaires are familiar
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
