Literature DB >> 12003053

Rapid assessment of psychosocial well-being: are computers the way forward in a clinical setting?

Allison Boyes1, Sallie Newell, Afaf Girgis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the agreement between anxiety, depression and supportive care needs data obtained using a touchscreen computer survey with traditional pen-and-paper surveys.
METHODS: The sample consisted of 1,304 consecutive patients attending the medical or radiation oncology outpatient department in two public cancer treatment centres. Of the 357 eligible patients, 355 (99%) consented to participate and 350 (98%) completed both touchscreen computer and pen-and-paper versions of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and short-form Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-short).
RESULTS: Simple kappa values indicated moderate agreement (X = 0.57) between the two modes of survey administration for most HADS items. Simple kappa coefficients indicated only fair agreement (X = 0.28) when a simplified response option format was used in the computerised SCNS-short. When the paper and computerised survey used the same response format, simple kappa coefficients increased and indicated moderate agreement (X = 0.44) for most SCNS-short items. Kappa coefficients indicated at least moderate agreement (kappa > 0.41) in identifying patients with elevated levels of anxiety and depression; there were no significant differences in the proportion of patients identified with elevated levels of anxiety and depression according to computer survey compared to paper survey. Prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) coefficients indicated at least moderate agreement (X = 0.79) in identifying participants with moderate/high levels of unmet needs. However, participants tended to report lower levels of unmet needs with a simplified response format in the computerised SCNS-short compared to the paper survey. This was not observed when the response format of the computerised SCNS-short replicated the paper survey.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the advantages that computerised surveys offer for simplifying survey presentation, current results suggest the need to exactly replicate the question and response option format of the original paper survey to ensure the data collected are equivalent. This finding is particularly important given the potential application of computerised surveys in the clinical setting to quickly assess and identify patients' concerns requiring intervention by health care providers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12003053     DOI: 10.1023/a:1014407819645

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  28 in total

1.  The unmet supportive care needs of patients with cancer. Supportive Care Review Group.

Authors:  R Sanson-Fisher; A Girgis; A Boyes; B Bonevski; L Burton; P Cook
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Computerized quality-of-life screening in an oncology clinic.

Authors:  P A Taenzer; M Speca; M J Atkinson; B D Bultz; S Page; P Harasym; J L Davis
Journal:  Cancer Pract       Date:  1997 May-Jun

3.  A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the Well-being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ).

Authors:  F Pouwer; F J Snoek; H M van der Ploeg; R J Heine; A N Brand
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  The recognition of psychiatric morbidity on a medical oncology ward.

Authors:  A Hardman; P Maguire; D Crowther
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 3.006

5.  The hospital anxiety and depression scale.

Authors:  A S Zigmond; R P Snaith
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 6.392

6.  How well do medical oncologists' perceptions reflect their patients' reported physical and psychosocial problems? Data from a survey of five oncologists.

Authors:  S Newell; R W Sanson-Fisher; A Girgis; A Bonaventura
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1998-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Caregiver burden and unmet patient needs.

Authors:  K Siegel; V H Raveis; P Houts; V Mor
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1991-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Screening for anxiety and depression in cancer patients: the effects of disease and treatment.

Authors:  T Ibbotson; P Maguire; P Selby; T Priestman; L Wallace
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 9.162

9.  Screening for psychiatric morbidity in patients with advanced breast cancer: validation of two self-report questionnaires.

Authors:  P Hopwood; A Howell; P Maguire
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Assessment of and intervention for psychosocial problems in routine oncology practice.

Authors:  A Cull; M Stewart; D G Altman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Effects of a computer-supported interactive tailored patient assessment tool on patient care, symptom distress, and patients' need for symptom management support: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Cornelia M Ruland; Harald H Holte; Jo Røislien; Cathy Heaven; Glenys A Hamilton; Jørn Kristiansen; Heidi Sandbaek; Stein O Kvaløy; Line Hasund; Misoo C Ellison
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Advanced lung cancer patients' experience with continuity of care and supportive care needs.

Authors:  Amna Husain; Lisa Barbera; Doris Howell; Rahim Moineddin; Andrea Bezjak; Jonathan Sussman
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-12-29       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Personal digital assistant data capture: the future of quality of life measurement in prostate cancer treatment.

Authors:  Andrew G Matthew; Kristen L Currie; Paul Ritvo; Robert Nam; Michael E Nesbitt; Robin W Kalnin; John Trachtenberg
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.840

5.  Depression screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administered on a touch screen computer.

Authors:  Jesse R Fann; Donna L Berry; Seth Wolpin; Mary Austin-Seymour; Nigel Bush; Barbara Halpenny; William B Lober; Ruth McCorkle
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.894

6.  Psychological distress in cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy treatment.

Authors:  L J Mackenzie; M L Carey; R W Sanson-Fisher; C A D'Este
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  Effect of method of administration on longitudinal assessment of quality of life in gynecologic cancer: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Karen M Gil; Heidi E Frasure; Michael P Hopkins; Eric L Jenison; Vivian E von Gruenigen
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2005-01-17       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  Radiation oncology outpatient perceptions of patient-centred care: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Lisa J Mackenzie; Rob W Sanson-Fisher; Mariko L Carey; Catherine A D'Este
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Cancer patients' willingness to answer survey questions about life expectancy.

Authors:  L J Mackenzie; M L Carey; R W Sanson-Fisher; C A D'Este; A E Hall
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 3.603

10.  Serial personal digital assistant data capture of health-related quality of life: a randomized controlled trial in a prostate cancer clinic.

Authors:  Andrew G Matthew; Kristen L Currie; Jane Irvine; Paul Ritvo; Daniel Santa Mina; Leah Jamnicky; Robert Nam; John Trachtenberg
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2007-07-06       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.