METHODS: To determine the utility and acceptability to patients and staff of a computerized quality-of-life (QOL) screening program in a tertiary ambulatory cancer pain clinic, patients were administered the computerized EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. A report summarizing this QOL information was given to clinic staff prior to each patient's appointment. Both the patient and the clinical staff were surveyed afterwards. RESULTS: Although more than half of the 46 patients had never used a computer before, almost all reported that the program was easy to use and understand, enjoyable, helpful, and quick. Their attitudes toward computers significantly improved from pre- to post-assessment. Staff found the QOL information to be appropriate and useful. CONCLUSIONS: The computerized questionnaire was readily used by patients and was helpful to pain clinic staff, making it an appropriate tool for identifying important QOL problems and issues in busy clinical settings, even for inexperienced computer users with significant functional impairment.
METHODS: To determine the utility and acceptability to patients and staff of a computerized quality-of-life (QOL) screening program in a tertiary ambulatory cancer pain clinic, patients were administered the computerized EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. A report summarizing this QOL information was given to clinic staff prior to each patient's appointment. Both the patient and the clinical staff were surveyed afterwards. RESULTS: Although more than half of the 46 patients had never used a computer before, almost all reported that the program was easy to use and understand, enjoyable, helpful, and quick. Their attitudes toward computers significantly improved from pre- to post-assessment. Staff found the QOL information to be appropriate and useful. CONCLUSIONS: The computerized questionnaire was readily used by patients and was helpful to pain clinic staff, making it an appropriate tool for identifying important QOL problems and issues in busy clinical settings, even for inexperienced computer users with significant functional impairment.
Authors: Donna L Berry; Brent A Blumenstein; Barbara Halpenny; Seth Wolpin; Jesse R Fann; Mary Austin-Seymour; Nigel Bush; Bryant T Karras; William B Lober; Ruth McCorkle Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S E Wolpin; B Halpenny; G Whitman; J McReynolds; M Stewart; W B Lober; D L Berry Journal: Health Informatics J Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Joseph M Herman; Sharon M White; Brandon S Luber; Amanda L Blackford; Michael A Carducci; Albert W Wu Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Annet Kleiboer; Katie Gowing; Christian Holm Hansen; Carina Hibberd; Laura Hodges; Jane Walker; Parvez Thekkumpurath; Mark O'Connor; Gordon Murray; Michael Sharpe Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jamie L Ryan; Michael W Mellon; Katherine W F Junger; Elizabeth A Hente; Lee A Denson; Shehzad A Saeed; Kevin A Hommel Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: T K Kvien; P Mowinckel; T Heiberg; K L Dammann; Ø Dale; G J Aanerud; T N Alme; T Uhlig Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2005-04-20 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Seth Wolpin; Donna Berry; Mary Austin-Seymour; Nigel Bush; Jesse R Fann; Barbara Halpenny; William B Lober; Ruth McCorkle Journal: Comput Inform Nurs Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.985