Literature DB >> 26249725

Acceptability of a Touch Screen Tablet Psychosocial Survey Administered to Radiation Therapy Patients in Japan.

Eiji Suzuki1, Lisa Mackenzie2,3, Robert Sanson-Fisher4,5, Mariko Carey4,5, Catherine D'Este6, Hiromi Asada7, Masakazu Toi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies in western clinical settings suggest that touch screen computer surveys are an acceptable mode of collecting information about cancer patients' wellbeing
PURPOSE: We examined the acceptability of a touch screen tablet survey among cancer patients in Japan.
METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 262) attending a university hospital radiation therapy (RT) department were invited to complete a touch screen tablet survey about psychosocial communication and care. Survey consent and completion rates, the proportion and characteristics of patients who completed the touch screen survey unassisted, and patient-reported acceptability were assessed.
RESULTS: Of 158 consenting patients (consent rate 60 % [95 % CI 54, 66 %] of eligible patients), 152 completed the touch screen computer survey (completion rate 58 % [95 % CI 52, 64 %] of eligible patients). The survey was completed without assistance by 74 % (n = 113; 95 % CI 67, 81 %) of respondents. Older age was associated with higher odds of having assistance with survey completion (OR 1.09; 95 % CI 1.04, 1.14 %). Ninety-two percent of patients (95 % CI 86, 96 %) felt that the touch screen survey was easy to use and 95 % (95 % CI 90, 98 %) agreed or strongly agreed that they were comfortable answering the questions. Overall, 65 % (95 % CI 57, 73 %) of respondents would be willing to complete such a survey more than once while waiting for RT treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Although patient self-reported acceptability of the touch screen survey was high, self-administered touch screen tablet surveys may not be entirely appropriate for older cancer patients or possibly for patients with lower educational attainment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Age factors; Cancer; Handheld computers; Japan; Patient preference; Survey methods

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26249725     DOI: 10.1007/s12529-015-9502-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Behav Med        ISSN: 1070-5503


  21 in total

1.  Research data collection methods: from paper to tablet computers.

Authors:  Adam B Wilcox; Kathleen D Gallagher; Bernadette Boden-Albala; Suzanne R Bakken
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Obtaining patient feedback at point of service using electronic kiosks.

Authors:  Danae N Dirocco; Susan C Day
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 2.229

3.  In a randomized controlled trial, patients preferred electronic data collection of breast cancer risk-factor information in a mammography setting.

Authors:  Erin J Aiello; Stephen Taplin; Robert Reid; Maria Hobbs; Deborah Seger; Hakim Kamel; Jim Tufano; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-10-13       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Recommendations for the implementation of distress screening programs in cancer centers: report from the American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS), Association of Oncology Social Work (AOSW), and Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) joint task force.

Authors:  William F Pirl; Jesse R Fann; Joseph A Greer; Ilana Braun; Teresa Deshields; Caryl Fulcher; Elizabeth Harvey; Jimmie Holland; Vicki Kennedy; Mark Lazenby; Lynne Wagner; Meghan Underhill; Deborah K Walker; James Zabora; Bradley Zebrack; Wayne A Bardwell
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  The association of cognitive fatigue with menopause, depressive symptoms, and quality of life in ambulatory breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Kiyoko Miura; Shoko Ando; Tsuneo Imai
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 4.239

6.  Effectiveness of QUICATOUCH: a computerised touch screen evaluation for pain and distress in ambulatory oncology patients in Newcastle, Australia.

Authors:  Gregory Carter; Ben Britton; Kerrie Clover; Kerry Rogers; Catherine Adams; Patrick McElduff
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2011-07-21       Impact factor: 3.894

7.  Validating automated screening for psychological distress by means of computer touchscreens for use in routine oncology practice.

Authors:  A Cull; A Gould; A House; A Smith; V Strong; G Velikova; P Wright; P Selby
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2001-12-14       Impact factor: 7.640

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.  New insights into public perceptions of cancer.

Authors:  Corina W Ramers-Verhoeven; Gary L Geipel; Moira Howie
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2013-09-10

10.  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

View more
  8 in total

1.  Improving Response Rates and Representation of Hard-to-Reach Groups in Family Experience Surveys.

Authors:  Sara L Toomey; Marc N Elliott; Alan M Zaslavsky; Jessica Quinn; David J Klein; Stephanie Wagner; Cassandra Thomson; Melody Wu; Sarah Onorato; Mark A Schuster
Journal:  Acad Pediatr       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.107

2.  Feasibility of the collection of patient-reported outcomes in an ambulatory neurology clinic.

Authors:  Lidia M V R Moura; Eli Schwamm; Valdery Moura Junior; Michael P Seitz; John Hsu; Andrew J Cole; Lee H Schwamm
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 9.910

3.  Patient-reported financial barriers to adherence to treatment in neurology.

Authors:  Lidia Mvr Moura; Eli L Schwamm; Valdery Moura Junior; Michael P Seitz; Daniel B Hoch; John Hsu; Lee H Schwamm
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2016-11-17

4.  Agreement between patients' and radiation oncologists' cancer diagnosis and prognosis perceptions: A cross sectional study in Japan.

Authors:  Lisa Jane Mackenzie; Mariko Leanne Carey; Eiji Suzuki; Robert William Sanson-Fisher; Hiromi Asada; Masakazu Ogura; Catherine D'Este; Michio Yoshimura; Masakazu Toi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Barriers and Enablers to Using a Patient-Facing Electronic Questionnaire: A Qualitative Theoretical Domains Framework Analysis.

Authors:  Janet Yamada; Andrew Kouri; Sarah-Nicole Simard; Stephanie A Segovia; Samir Gupta
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 5.428

6.  Primary Care Pre-Visit Electronic Patient Questionnaire for Asthma: Uptake Analysis and Predictor Modeling.

Authors:  Andrew Kouri; Janet Yamada; Joanna E M Sale; Sharon E Straus; Samir Gupta
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Reliability and validity of an instrument to assess pediatric inpatients' experience of care in China.

Authors:  Guangyu Hu; Changzheng Yuan; Haoming Ren; Jinliang Hu; Mingxia Shang; Kun Wang
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2021-09

8.  A pilot study of patient satisfaction with a self-completed tablet-based digital questionnaire for collecting the patient's medical history in an emergency department.

Authors:  Leander Melms; Juergen R Schaefer; Andreas Jerrentrup; Tobias Mueller
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 2.655

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.