Feasibility and applicability of the paper and electronic COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) in primary care: A clinimetric study

J. W. H. Kocks*, C. M. G. Blom, M. J. Kasteleyn, W. Oosterom, B. J. Kollen, T. Van der Molen, N. H. Chavannes

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)
189 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Three questionnaires are recommended in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease, of which two are the more comprehensive assessments: the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire. Both are carefully designed high-quality questionnaires, but information on the feasibility for routine use is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the time to complete the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and the acceptability of the questionnaires. Furthermore, the agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was explored. The time to complete the electronic versions of the questionnaires was 99.6 [IQR 74; 157] vs. 97.5 [IQR 68; 136] seconds for clinical clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test, respectively. The difference in time to complete the questionnaire was not significant. The two questionnaires did not differ in "easiness to complete" or "importance of issues raised in questionnaires". Electronic vs. paper versions revealed high agreement (ICC CCQ = 0.815 [0.712; 0.883] and ICC CAT = 0.751 [0.608; 0.847]) between the administration methods. Based on this study it can be concluded that both questionnaires are equally suitable for use in routine clinical practice, because they are both quick to complete and have a good acceptability by the patient. Agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was high, so use of electronic versions is justified.

Original languageEnglish
Article number20
Number of pages5
JournalPrimary Care Respiratory Medicine
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28-Mar-2017

Keywords

  • Journal Article

Cite this