Chi Heon Kim1, Chun Kee Chung2, Yunhee Choi3, HyunJeong Shin3, Ji Won Woo4, Sung-Mi Kim4, Hyuk-Joon Lee5. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, 03080 Seoul, South Korea; Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, 03080 Seoul, South Korea; Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, 03080 Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, 03080 Seoul, South Korea; Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, 03080 Seoul, South Korea; Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, 03080 Seoul, South Korea; Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Seoul National University College of Natural Sciences, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, 08826 Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: chungc@snu.ac.kr. 3. Medical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, 03080 Seoul, South Korea. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, 03080 Seoul, South Korea. 5. Department of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, 03080 Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are typically collected using a paper form, but this format is cumbersome to incorporate into outpatient clinic visits as well as in research. Therefore, we developed a mobile device-based system (mobile system) for spinal PRO. We hypothesized that this system may improve the quality of care in an outpatient clinic. PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze the patient-reported efficacy of a mobile system through a survey of patients' responses compared with a paper system. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: A prospective observational study was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: Surveys were conducted for 103 patients who had experience using both the paper and electronic systems in the outpatient clinic. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported positive response score (PRS) was the outcome measure. METHODS: The survey included the characteristics of the patients (sex, age, use of smartphone, familiarity with smartphone applications, proficiency of typing with mobile device, site of pain, and education level) and eight questions in four domains: (1) efficacy in the waiting room, (2) efficacy during the clinic visit, (3) overall satisfaction, and (4) opinion about the use of this system. The response to each question was scored from 1 to 5 (1, negative; 5, positive response). The patient-reported PRS was calculated by adding the scores of the 8 questions and converting the total range to 0-100 (60, neutral). RESULTS: The mean PRS of the 8 questions was 79.8 (95% CI, 76.7-83.9). The mean PRS was 78.9 (75.6-82.2) at the waiting room and was 80.5 (77.1-83.9) during the clinic. The PRS for overall satisfaction and use of this system were 83.3 (79.6-87.0) and 77.1 (71.9-82.3), respectively. The use of smartphones and the proficiency of typing were independently significant predictors of PRS with an R(2) value of 0.325. CONCLUSIONS: The mobile device-based system improved the patient-reported efficacy in spine outpatient clinics. However, various factors such as the use of smartphones need to be considered when developing and applying mobile systems.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are typically collected using a paper form, but this format is cumbersome to incorporate into outpatient clinic visits as well as in research. Therefore, we developed a mobile device-based system (mobile system) for spinal PRO. We hypothesized that this system may improve the quality of care in an outpatient clinic. PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze the patient-reported efficacy of a mobile system through a survey of patients' responses compared with a paper system. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: A prospective observational study was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: Surveys were conducted for 103 patients who had experience using both the paper and electronic systems in the outpatient clinic. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported positive response score (PRS) was the outcome measure. METHODS: The survey included the characteristics of the patients (sex, age, use of smartphone, familiarity with smartphone applications, proficiency of typing with mobile device, site of pain, and education level) and eight questions in four domains: (1) efficacy in the waiting room, (2) efficacy during the clinic visit, (3) overall satisfaction, and (4) opinion about the use of this system. The response to each question was scored from 1 to 5 (1, negative; 5, positive response). The patient-reported PRS was calculated by adding the scores of the 8 questions and converting the total range to 0-100 (60, neutral). RESULTS: The mean PRS of the 8 questions was 79.8 (95% CI, 76.7-83.9). The mean PRS was 78.9 (75.6-82.2) at the waiting room and was 80.5 (77.1-83.9) during the clinic. The PRS for overall satisfaction and use of this system were 83.3 (79.6-87.0) and 77.1 (71.9-82.3), respectively. The use of smartphones and the proficiency of typing were independently significant predictors of PRS with an R(2) value of 0.325. CONCLUSIONS: The mobile device-based system improved the patient-reported efficacy in spine outpatient clinics. However, various factors such as the use of smartphones need to be considered when developing and applying mobile systems.
Authors: Young Hoon Choi; Shin Won Kwon; Jung Hyeon Moon; Chi Heon Kim; Chun Kee Chung; Sung Bae Park; Won Heo Journal: J Korean Neurosurg Soc Date: 2017-10-25
Authors: Lindsay A Jibb; James S Khan; Puneet Seth; Chitra Lalloo; Lauren Mulrooney; Kathryn Nicholson; Dominik A Nowak; Harneel Kaur; Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow; Joel Foster; Jennifer N Stinson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Peter J Kneuertz; Niveditha Jagadesh; Alicia Perkins; Morgan Fitzgerald; Susan D Moffatt-Bruce; Robert E Merritt; Desmond M D'Souza Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: James S Khan; Lindsay A Jibb; Jason W Busse; Ian Gilron; Stephen Choi; James E Paul; Michael McGillion; Sean Mackey; D Norman Buckley; Shun Fu Lee; P J Devereaux Journal: Can J Pain Date: 2019-07-30