Improving Health Care Efficiency and Quality Using Tablet Personal Computers to Collect Research-quality, Patient-reported Data

Overview

Journal Health Serv Res

Specialty Health Services

Date 2008 Sep 3

PMID 18761678

Citations 59

Authors

Amy P Abernethy

James E Herndon 2nd

Jane L Wheeler

Meenal Patwardhan

Heather Shaw

H Kim Lyerly

Kevin Weinfurt

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether e/Tablets (wireless tablet computers used in community oncology clinics to collect review of systems information at point of care) are feasible, acceptable, and valid for collecting research-quality data in academic oncology. DATA/SETTING: Primary/Duke Breast Cancer Clinic.

Design: Pilot study enrolling sample of 66 breast cancer patients.

Methods: Data were collected using paper- and e/Tablet-based surveys: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast, MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT), Self-Efficacy; and two questionnaires: feasibility, satisfaction.

Principal Findings: Patients supported e/Tablets as: easy to read (94 percent), easy to respond to (98 percent), comfortable weight (87 percent). Generally, electronic responses validly reflected responses provided by standard paper data collection on nearly all subscales tested.

Conclusions: e/Tablets offer a valid, feasible, acceptable method for collecting research-quality, patient-reported outcomes data in outpatient academic oncology.

Citing Articles

Enhancing Clinical History Taking Through the Implementation of a Streamlined Electronic Questionnaire System at a Pediatric Headache Clinic: Development and Evaluation Study.

Cho J, Han J, Cho A, Yoo S, Lee H, Kim H JMIR Med Inform. 2024; 12:e54415.

PMID: 39622694 PMC: 11611800. DOI: 10.2196/54415.

Clinical Integration of Digital Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Primary Health Care for Chronic Disease Management: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Sasseville M, Supper W, Gartner J, Layani G, Amil S, Sheffield P JMIR Res Protoc. 2023; 12:e48155.

PMID: 37594780 PMC: 10474503. DOI: 10.2196/48155.

Adapting and usability testing of the Kansas city cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ) in a heart failure clinic in Tanzania: the Swahili KCCQ.

Chillo P, Mlay J, Akanyirige P, Majani N, Janabi M, Kaaya S BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2023; 23(1):242.

PMID: 37149565 PMC: 10163850. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-023-03265-0.

Optimizing Recruitment and Retention in Substance Use Disorder Research in Emergency Departments.

Worth L, Macias-Konstantopoulos W, Moy L, Perl H, Crandall C, Chavez R West J Emerg Med. 2023; 24(2):228-235.

PMID: 36976606 PMC: 10047737. DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2022.11.57179.

Effectiveness of an online support program to help female cancer patients manage their health and illness: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Mizuno M, Chiba I, Mukohara T, Kondo M, Maruo K, Ohigashi T Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2022; 30:101035.

PMID: 36387994 PMC: 9661427. DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2022.101035.

References

Yellen S, Cella D, Webster K, Blendowski C, Kaplan E . Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997; 13(2):63-74. DOI: 10.1016/s0885-3924(96)00274-6. View

Hibbard J, Stockard J, Mahoney E, Tusler M . Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004; 39(4 Pt 1):1005-26. PMC: 1361049. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x. View

Cleeland C, Mendoza T, Wang X, Chou C, Harle M, Morrissey M . Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients: the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Cancer. 2000; 89(7):1634-46. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(20001001)89:7<1634::aid-cncr29>3.0.co;2-v. View

Walley T . Health technology assessment in England: assessment and appraisal. Med J Aust. 2007; 187(5):283-5. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01244.x. View

Skinner H, Allen B . Does the computer make a difference? Computerized versus face-to-face versus self-report assessment of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983; 51(2):267-75. DOI: 10.1037//0022-006x.51.2.267. View

Velikova G, Wright E, Smith A, Cull A, Gould A, Forman D . Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17(3):998-1007. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.3.998. View

Brady M, Cella D, Mo F, Bonomi A, Tulsky D, Lloyd S . Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. J Clin Oncol. 1997; 15(3):974-86. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.3.974. View

Velikova G, Booth L, Smith A, Brown P, Lynch P, Brown J . Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(4):714-24. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078. View

Cella D . Methods and problems in measuring quality of life. Support Care Cancer. 1995; 3(1):11-22. DOI: 10.1007/BF00343916. View

10.

Lewis G, Sharp D, Bartholomew J, Pelosi A . Computerized assessment of common mental disorders in primary care: effect on clinical outcome. Fam Pract. 1996; 13(2):120-6. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/13.2.120. View

11.

Lipscomb J, Gotay C, Snyder C . Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57(5):278-300. DOI: 10.3322/CA.57.5.278. View

12.

Cella D, Tulsky D, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A . The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993; 11(3):570-9. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570. View

13.

Gwaltney C, Shields A, Shiffman S . Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008; 11(2):322-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x. View

14.

Yarnold P, Stewart M, Stille F, Martin G . Assessing functional status of elderly adults via microcomputer. Percept Mot Skills. 1996; 82(2):689-90. DOI: 10.2466/pms.1996.82.2.689. View

15.

OConnor K, Hallam R, Hinchcliffe R . Evaluation of a computer interview system for use with neuro-otology patients. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1989; 14(1):3-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2273.1989.tb00329.x. View

16.

Fortner B, Okon T, Schwartzberg L, Tauer K, Houts A . The Cancer Care Monitor: psychometric content evaluation and pilot testing of a computer administered system for symptom screening and quality of life in adult cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003; 26(6):1077-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.04.003. View

17.

Ganz P . Quality of life and the patient with cancer. Individual and policy implications. Cancer. 1994; 74(4 Suppl):1445-52. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19940815)74:4+<1445::aid-cncr2820741608>3.0.co;2-#. View

18.

Dancey J, Zee B, Osoba D, Whitehead M, Lu F, Kaizer L . Quality of life scores: an independent prognostic variable in a general population of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Qual Life Res. 1997; 6(2):151-8. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026442201191. View

19.

Lorig K, Chastain R, Ung E, Shoor S, HOLMAN H . Development and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1989; 32(1):37-44. DOI: 10.1002/anr.1780320107. View

20.

Drummond H, Ghosh S, Ferguson A, Brackenridge D, Tiplady B . Electronic quality of life questionnaires: a comparison of pen-based electronic questionnaires with conventional paper in a gastrointestinal study. Qual Life Res. 1995; 4(1):21-6. DOI: 10.1007/BF00434379. View