PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of collecting patient-reported outcomes data with wireless touch screen tablet computers in the adult oncology palliative care setting. METHODS: Patients were provided with tablet computers during scheduled clinic visits and answered online queries about their experience over the past week in the health domains of anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, physical function, instrumental social support, sleep impairment, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, dyspnea, neuropathy, and spiritual values. RESULTS: Content analysis of patient interviews indicates that wireless touch screen tablet computers are a feasible approach for collecting patient-reported outcome measures by palliative care cancer patients presenting in clinic. Most patients indicated that the questionnaire was easy to answer. However, all but one patient requested some form of assistance, and many reported difficulties attributable to a lack of familiarity with the device, interpretation of certain questions, and wireless connectivity-related issues. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study demonstrates that tablet computers have the potential to efficiently and reliably collect patient-reported health status measures among palliative care cancer patients presenting in clinics. The use of these devices may lead to substantial improvements by making patient-reported outcomes available for clinical decision-making.
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of collecting patient-reported outcomes data with wireless touch screen tablet computers in the adult oncology palliative care setting. METHODS:Patients were provided with tablet computers during scheduled clinic visits and answered online queries about their experience over the past week in the health domains of anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, physical function, instrumental social support, sleep impairment, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, dyspnea, neuropathy, and spiritual values. RESULTS: Content analysis of patient interviews indicates that wireless touch screen tablet computers are a feasible approach for collecting patient-reported outcome measures by palliative care cancerpatients presenting in clinic. Most patients indicated that the questionnaire was easy to answer. However, all but one patient requested some form of assistance, and many reported difficulties attributable to a lack of familiarity with the device, interpretation of certain questions, and wireless connectivity-related issues. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study demonstrates that tablet computers have the potential to efficiently and reliably collect patient-reported health status measures among palliative care cancerpatients presenting in clinics. The use of these devices may lead to substantial improvements by making patient-reported outcomes available for clinical decision-making.
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Neil K Aaronson; Ali K Choucair; Thomas E Elliott; Joanne Greenhalgh; Michele Y Halyard; Rachel Hess; Deborah M Miller; Bryce B Reeve; Maria Santana Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Elena E Takeuchi; Ada Keding; Noha Awad; Ursula Hofmann; Lyndsay J Campbell; Peter J Selby; Julia M Brown; Galina Velikova Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard Gershon; Nan E Rothrock; Rachel T Hanrahan; Liz J Jansky; Mark Harniss; William Riley Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-03-21 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ethan Basch; Amy P Abernethy; C Daniel Mullins; Bryce B Reeve; Mary Lou Smith; Stephen Joel Coons; Jeff Sloan; Keith Wenzel; Cynthia Chauhan; Wayland Eppard; Elizabeth S Frank; Joseph Lipscomb; Stephen A Raymond; Merianne Spencer; Sean Tunis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sara Ahmed; Richard A Berzon; Dennis A Revicki; William R Lenderking; Carol M Moinpour; Ethan Basch; Bryce B Reeve; Albert W Wu Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Claudia Rutherford; Daniel Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Holly Rice; Liam Gabb; Madeleine King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Adrian Levitsky; Britt-Marie Bernhardson; Carol Tishelman; Lars E Eriksson; Ingela Henoch; Maria Olin; Karl Kölbeck; Nadja Rystedt Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: L M Wintner; J M Giesinger; A Zabernigg; G Rumpold; M Sztankay; A S Oberguggenberger; E M Gamper; B Holzner Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: E Anne Lown; Anu Banerjee; Eric Vittinghoff; Christopher C Dvorak; Wendy Hartogensis; Alexis Melton; Christina Mangurian; Hiroe Hu; Deborah Shear; Robyn Adcock; Michael Morgan; Carla Golden; Frederick M Hecht Journal: Glob Adv Health Med Date: 2019-08-14
Authors: Jonathan G Stine; George J Stukenborg; Jennifer Wang; Alden Adkins; Blake Niccum; Alex Zimmet; Curtis K Argo Journal: Ann Hepatol Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 2.400
Authors: Angela Stover; Debra E Irwin; Ronald C Chen; Bhishamjit S Chera; Deborah K Mayer; Hyman B Muss; Donald L Rosenstein; Thomas C Shea; William A Wood; Jessica C Lyons; Bryce B Reeve Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2015-10-29
Authors: Traci L Hedrick; Amy M Harrigan; Robert H Thiele; Charles M Friel; Benjamin D Kozower; George J Stukenborg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Tracie Locklear; Lynn L DeBar; James Willig; Sean Rundell; Leslie Blackhall; Douglas Zatzick; Karen Staman; Nrupen Bhavsar; Kevin Weinfurt; Amy P Abernethy Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2017-06-12
Authors: George J Stukenborg; Leslie J Blackhall; James H Harrison; Patrick M Dillon; Paul W Read Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 3.359