W E Trick1, C Deamant2, J Smith1, D Garcia1, F Angulo1. 1. Collaborative Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Cook County Health & Hospitals System , Chicago, Illinois. 2. Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Cook County Health & Hospitals System , Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine implementation of instruments to capture patient-reported outcomes could guide clinical practice and facilitate health services research. Audio interviews facilitate self-interviews across literacy levels. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate time burden for patients, and factors associated with response times for an audio computer-assisted self interview (ACASI) system integrated into the clinical workflow. METHODS: We developed an ACASI system, integrated with a research data warehouse. Instruments for symptom burden, self-reported health, depression screening, tobacco use, and patient satisfaction were administered through touch-screen monitors in the general medicine clinic at the Cook County Health & Hospitals System during April 8, 2011-July 27, 2012. We performed a cross-sectional study to evaluate the mean time burden per item and for each module of instruments; we evaluated factors associated with longer response latency. RESULTS: Among 1,670 interviews, the mean per-question response time was 18.4 [SD, 6.1] seconds. By multivariable analysis, age was most strongly associated with prolonged response time and increased per decade compared to < 50 years as follows (additional seconds per question; 95% CI): 50-59 years (1.4; 0.7 to 2.1 seconds); 60-69 (3.4; 2.6 to 4.1); 70-79 (5.1; 4.0 to 6.1); and 80-89 (5.5; 4.1 to 7.0). Response times also were longer for Spanish language (3.9; 2.9 to 4.9); no home computer use (3.3; 2.8 to 3.9); and, low mental self-reported health (0.6; 0.0 to 1.1). However, most interviews were completed within 10 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: An ACASI software system can be included in a patient visit and adds minimal time burden. The burden was greatest for older patients, interviews in Spanish, and for those with less computer exposure. A patient's self-reported health had minimal impact on response times.
BACKGROUND: Routine implementation of instruments to capture patient-reported outcomes could guide clinical practice and facilitate health services research. Audio interviews facilitate self-interviews across literacy levels. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate time burden for patients, and factors associated with response times for an audio computer-assisted self interview (ACASI) system integrated into the clinical workflow. METHODS: We developed an ACASI system, integrated with a research data warehouse. Instruments for symptom burden, self-reported health, depression screening, tobacco use, and patient satisfaction were administered through touch-screen monitors in the general medicine clinic at the Cook County Health & Hospitals System during April 8, 2011-July 27, 2012. We performed a cross-sectional study to evaluate the mean time burden per item and for each module of instruments; we evaluated factors associated with longer response latency. RESULTS: Among 1,670 interviews, the mean per-question response time was 18.4 [SD, 6.1] seconds. By multivariable analysis, age was most strongly associated with prolonged response time and increased per decade compared to < 50 years as follows (additional seconds per question; 95% CI): 50-59 years (1.4; 0.7 to 2.1 seconds); 60-69 (3.4; 2.6 to 4.1); 70-79 (5.1; 4.0 to 6.1); and 80-89 (5.5; 4.1 to 7.0). Response times also were longer for Spanish language (3.9; 2.9 to 4.9); no home computer use (3.3; 2.8 to 3.9); and, low mental self-reported health (0.6; 0.0 to 1.1). However, most interviews were completed within 10 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: An ACASI software system can be included in a patient visit and adds minimal time burden. The burden was greatest for older patients, interviews in Spanish, and for those with less computer exposure. A patient's self-reported health had minimal impact on response times.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computers; patient-centered outcome research; quality of life; software; symptoms
Authors: Alia A Al-Tayyib; Susan M Rogers; James N Gribble; Maria Villarroel; Charles F Turner Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Mary F Wisniewski; Piotr Kieszkowski; Brandon M Zagorski; William E Trick; Michael Sommers; Robert A Weinstein Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003-06-04 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Joanne Klevens; William E Trick; Romina Kee; Francisco Angulo; Diana Garcia; Laura S Sadowski Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-02-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: R K Portenoy; H T Thaler; A B Kornblith; J M Lepore; H Friedlander-Klar; E Kiyasu; K Sobel; N Coyle; N Kemeny; L Norton Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Eve Angeline Hood-Medland; Susan L Stewart; Hien Nguyen; Mark Avdalovic; Scott MacDonald; Shu-Hong Zhu; Antonio Mayoral; Elisa K Tong Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Jason M Satterfield; Steven E Gregorich; Sara Kalkhoran; Paula J Lum; Jessica Bloome; Nicholas Alvarado; Ricardo F Muñoz; Maya Vijayaraghavan Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Naser Morina; Simon M Ewers; Sandra Passardi; Ulrich Schnyder; Christine Knaevelsrud; Julia Müller; Richard A Bryant; Angela Nickerson; Matthis Schick Journal: Confl Health Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 2.723