Literature DB >> 17668293

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

James B Jones1, Claire F Snyder, Albert W Wu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although there is a growing interest in using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to monitor disease progression and/or therapeutic response, to improve care, and to screen for physical or psychosocial problems in routine clinical practice, PRO instruments can be difficult to administer, score, and interpret in this setting. Internet-based approaches to PRO collection may help overcome these obstacles. This paper discusses the rationale for using the Internet for routine PRO collection, summarizes relevant literature and ongoing projects, and raises several key design and development issues that should guide further efforts in this area. MAJOR
FINDINGS: A small number of Internet-based PRO collection applications have been or are currently being developed. The major characteristics of several of these projects are reviewed and summarized. Successful Internet-based PRO collection applications must address patient and clinician-specific needs related to workflow and to the way in which results are presented. A growing number of instruments have been adapted for and evaluated in a web-based format.
CONCLUSIONS: Collecting PROs via the Internet has the potential to overcome many of the challenges associated with efforts to routinely use PROs in the clinical encounter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17668293     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-007-9235-z

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


  46 in total

1.  e-health, HIPAA, and beyond.

Authors:  J R Lumpkin
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2000 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  The feasibility of a web-based surveillance system to collect health risk behavior data from college students.

Authors:  L N Pealer; R M Weiler; R M Pigg; D Miller; S M Dorman
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2001-10

Review 3.  Health information privacy and public health.

Authors:  James G Hodge
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Methodological issues for building item banks and computerized adaptive scales.

Authors:  David Thissen; Bryce B Reeve; Jakob Bue Bjorner; Chih-Hung Chang
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-02-10       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Symone B Detmar; Martin J Muller; Jan H Schornagel; Lidwina D V Wever; Neil K Aaronson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-12-18       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  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

7.  Quality of life assessment in daily clinical oncology practice: a feasibility study.

Authors:  S B Detmar; N K Aaronson
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  Computerized symptom and quality-of-life assessment for patients with cancer part II: acceptability and usability.

Authors:  Kristin H Mullen; Donna L Berry; Brenda K Zierler
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2004-09-17       Impact factor: 2.172

9.  Feasibility and compliance of automated measurement of quality of life in oncology practice.

Authors:  E P Wright; P J Selby; M Crawford; A Gillibrand; C Johnston; T J Perren; R Rush; A Smith; G Velikova; K Watson; A Gould; A Cull
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor-patient interactions in oncology.

Authors:  G Velikova; J M Brown; A B Smith; P J Selby
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2002-01-07       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  31 in total

1.  Taking PROs and patient-centered care seriously: incremental and disruptive ideas for incorporating PROs in oncology practice.

Authors:  Molla Sloane Donaldson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-11-09       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice.

Authors:  Katherine C Smith; Michael D Brundage; Elliott Tolbert; Emily A Little; Elissa T Bantug; Claire F Snyder
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Identifying Symptoms of Distress in Youth Living with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1).

Authors:  Lori Wiener; Haven Battles; Sima Zadeh Bedoya; Andrea Baldwin; Brigitte C Widemann; Maryland Pao
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-07-23       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Internet-Based Multi-institutional Clinical Research: A New Method to Conduct and Manage Quality of Life Studies.

Authors:  Snehal G Patel
Journal:  Skull Base       Date:  2010-01

5.  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

6.  Integrating PROMIS® computerized adaptive tests into a web-based intervention for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Rina S Fox; Patricia I Moreno; Betina Yanez; Ryne Estabrook; Jessica Thomas; Laura C Bouchard; Heather L McGinty; David C Mohr; Mark J Begale; Sarah C Flury; Kent T Perry; Shilajit D Kundu; Frank J Penedo
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.267

Review 7.  Use of patient-reported outcomes in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Authors:  Michaela A Dinan; Kate L Compton; Jatinder K Dhillon; Bradley G Hammill; Esi Morgan Dewitt; Kevin P Weinfurt; Kevin A Schulman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Web versus paper-based completion of the epidemiology of prolapse and incontinence questionnaire.

Authors:  Marlene J Egger; Emily S Lukacz; Megan Newhouse; Jia Wang; Ingrid Nygaard
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.091

9.  A clinical perspective on electronically collecting patient-reported outcomes at the point-of-care for overactive bladder.

Authors:  Darren Desantis; Richard J Baverstock; Andrea Civitarese; R Trafford Crump; Kevin V Carlson
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 1.862

10.  Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research.

Authors:  Claire F Snyder; Roxanne E Jensen; Jodi B Segal; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.