Literature DB >> 17275840

Electronic source materials in clinical research: acceptability and validity of symptom self-rating in major depressive disorder.

Ian A Cook1, G K Balasubramani, Heather Eng, Edward Friedman, Elizabeth A Young, Jeff Martin, William T Nay, Louise Ritz, A John Rush, Diane Stegman, Diane Warden, Madhukar H Trivedi, Stephen R Wisniewski.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Clinical research projects gather large amounts of data. Typically, information is captured on paper source documents for later transcription to an electronic format, where responses can be checked, and errors, omissions, and inconsistencies can be resolved. These steps contribute delays, cost, and complexity to clinical research, particularly in large-scale multi-site investigations. To address these issues, we used a mobile computing device with a touch-screen display ("tablet PC") to capture clinical data from depressed patients directly into electronic format. We then examined ease of use, the equivalence of responses between paper and electronic methods, and the acceptability of the tablet PC for this clinical population. SETTINGS: Outpatient clinics at four medical centers.
METHODS: 80 adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) completed the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology--Self-Rated (QIDS-SR(16)), using both traditional paper forms and an electronic representation of the same questions; participants also completed a survey to evaluate their experience.
RESULTS: QIDS-SR(16) responses from paper and electronic versions were highly correlated (mean total: 15.3 (SD=5.2) electronic vs. 15.1 (SD=5.2) paper format), and showed high inter-rating reliability for overall score (intra-class correlation 0.987 (with a 95%CI [0.979,0.992])) and high degree of association for individual symptom items. Participants found both methods acceptable and overall found the electronic implementation easier to use.
CONCLUSIONS: QIDS-SR(16) values collected electronically from research participants were equivalent to those collected using traditional paper self-assessment forms. Participants with MDD found the tablet PC version to be acceptable and easier to use than the paper forms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17275840     DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.07.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psychiatr Res        ISSN: 0022-3956            Impact factor:   4.791


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Outcome assessment via handheld computer in community mental health: consumer satisfaction and reliability.

Authors:  Lizabeth A Goldstein; Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons; Sarah M Thompson; Kelli Scott; Laura Heintz; Patricia Green; Donald Thompson; Paul Crits-Christoph
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.505

Review 3.  Interformat reliability of digital psychiatric self-report questionnaires: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sven Alfonsson; Pernilla Maathz; Timo Hursti
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 5.428

4.  Assessment of the mind in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Mind or never mind.

Authors:  Bharat Bhushan Sharma; Virendra Singh
Journal:  Lung India       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr

5.  Assessing the Equivalence of Paper, Mobile Phone, and Tablet Survey Responses at a Community Mental Health Center Using Equivalent Halves of a 'Gold-Standard' Depression Item Bank.

Authors:  Benjamin B Brodey; Nicole L Gonzalez; Kathryn Ann Elkin; W Jordan Sasiela; Inger S Brodey
Journal:  JMIR Ment Health       Date:  2017-09-06

Review 6.  Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013.

Authors:  Willie Muehlhausen; Helen Doll; Nuz Quadri; Bethany Fordham; Paul O'Donohoe; Nijda Dogar; Diane J Wild
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 3.186

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.