Literature DB >> 11934962

Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: an initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36.

A S Wilson1, G D Kitas, D M Carruthers, C Reay, J Skan, S Harris, G J Treharne, S P Young, P A Bacon.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Longitudinal outcome data are important for research and are becoming part of routine clinical practice. We assessed an initial version of an electronic Short Form 36 (SF-36), a well-established health assessment questionnaire, in comparison with standard paper forms, in two specialist rheumatology clinics.
METHODS: Out-patients (20 with systemic lupus erythematosus and 31 with vasculitis) were randomly selected to complete either paper (n=29) or electronic and paper SF-36 versions (n=51) before and after consultation (paper vs paper comparison). Data were evaluated as the response correlation, internal consistency, missing data, patient satisfaction and preference.
RESULTS: There were very good correlations in SF-36 responses (P<0.001) between the paper and electronic forms and the paper and paper forms. Internal reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) showed good internal consistency for all reported responses in either computer or paper forms. There were no missing data in the computerized version but 24% of patients failed to answer all of the paper form questions. Ease of use of the computer version was rated highly by 71% of all the respondents, and 69% would prefer to use the computer version in future. DISCUSSION: Computerized data collection is acceptable to patients and feasible in clinical settings. It provides responses that are at least comparable to those to the paper form, improves data capture and is available immediately.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11934962     DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/41.3.268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)        ISSN: 1462-0324            Impact factor:   7.580


  19 in total

1.  Feasibility of using a handheld electronic device for the collection of patient reported outcomes data from children.

Authors:  Lisa A Vinney; John D Grade; Nadine P Connor
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 2.288

Review 2.  Self-report measures of medication adherence behavior: recommendations on optimal use.

Authors:  Michael J Stirratt; Jacqueline Dunbar-Jacob; Heidi M Crane; Jane M Simoni; Susan Czajkowski; Marisa E Hilliard; James E Aikens; Christine M Hunter; Dawn I Velligan; Kristen Huntley; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Cynthia S Rand; Eleanor Schron; Wendy J Nilsen
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Crossover randomized controlled trial of the electronic version of the Chinese SF-36.

Authors:  Tian-hui Chen; Lu Li; Joerg M Sigle; Ya-ping Du; Hong-mei Wang; Jun Lei
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.066

4.  Issues in the design of Internet-based systems for collecting patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  James B Jones; Claire F Snyder; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-08-01       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: an overview and practical examples.

Authors:  Matthias Rose; Andrea Bezjak
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Can the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score produce reliable results when used online?

Authors:  Mark Clayer; Aileen Davis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Performance of health status measures with a pen based personal digital assistant.

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

8.  Test-retest of computerized health status questionnaires frequently used in the monitoring of knee osteoarthritis: a randomized crossover trial.

Authors:  Henrik Gudbergsen; Else M Bartels; Peter Krusager; Eva E Wæhrens; Robin Christensen; Bente Danneskiold-Samsøe; Henning Bliddal
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Outcome scores collected by touchscreen: medical audit as it should be in the 21st century?

Authors:  Sean Dixon; Timothy Bunker; Daniel Chan
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 1.891

10.  Comparison of paper and electronic surveys for measuring patient-reported outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Jamie L Bojcic; Valerie M Sue; Tomy S Huon; Gregory B Maletis; Maria C S Inacio
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2014
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.