Trial reportQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2013
Score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21): a randomised crossover trial in cancer patients.
Trial report in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2016Pooled it
- Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2015Pooled it
- Measurement equivalence of the paper-based and electronic version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS): A randomised crossover trial.Palliative medicine · 2023Trial
- Clinical practice guidelines for prognosis and follow-up of early-stage breast cancer patients: Chinese Society of Breast Surgery (CSBrS) practice guidelines (2026 edition) Chinese Society of Breast Surgery, Chinese Society of Surgery, Chinese Medical Association.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2026Review
- Biopsychosocial Associates of Psychological Distress and Post-Traumatic Growth among Canadian Cancer Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Electronic forms for patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an effective, time-efficient, and cost-minimizing alternative to paper forms.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2021Article
- eRAPID electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice: a pilot study protocol in pelvic radiotherapy.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21) assesses everyday problems experienced by cancer patients, including difficulties with self-care, work and relationships. Early development and psychometric evaluation studies have validated the SDI-21 for computer administration. However, several recent studies have administered the SDI-21 on paper. We sought to test the score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the SDI-21.
methodsA randomised two-arm crossover trial in a sample of cancer patients with varied diagnoses. Patients completed electronic (via the internet) and paper versions of the SDI-21, with half randomly assigned to complete the electronic version first (n = 51) and half the paper version first (n = 60). Patients were asked to complete both versions at home, within 2 weeks. Analyses were performed for the SDI-21 summary score and three subscales.
resultsScore distributions and internal reliabilities for the paper and electronic versions were highly similar. There were no significant differences between mean summary or subscale scores for the two administration modes. All mean score differences (all <0.25 of a scale point) were well below the SDI-21's established minimally important differences, and all 95 % confidence intervals were narrow and included zero. Intraclass correlations between paper and electronic scores were uniformly high and significant (all ≥0.85) and above the standard acceptable level of reliability.
conclusionsPaper and electronic versions of the SDI-21 can be considered equivalent and used interchangeably. This is important because, despite the growth of electronic formats, paper versions are currently still necessary to ensure inclusive use of the SDI-21 with representative samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22851003What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.